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

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

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.

Then don't be ignorant. Take a look at IMF's World Economic Outlook database, April 2018. You'll probably be surprized that there's five different measures of GDP per capita (with quite different numbers).

[aleCcowaN]

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.

Year 2012 is there for all to see. It gives a 14.6% growth in 14 years instead of a 14.5% in 15 years. Wow! What a striking difference! I managed to hide the complete success of Chávez.

Look pal, why don't you go a fetch someone who can replace you and argue your side of the discussion in an effective and non-risible manner? Because so far dann and you have not provided what a good extreme leftist shall, other than the quality of being irritating and close-minded. The needed ability to polemicize, not present at all.

I'd love discussing with well educated zurdos. They make me evolve. Here I only see the same recycling of stale red merchandise.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

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.

How many times are you going to recycle the same lie of yours?

You have there in the post you quoted the values both for 2013 so stop twisting you way with your puerile lies.

[Klimax]

ETA: No longer relevant...

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Then don't be ignorant. Take a look at IMF's World Economic Outlook database, April 2018. You'll probably be surprized that there's five different measures of GDP per capita (with quite different numbers).

I'd rather say that the surprised one is you .

I certainly know all what is needed about Econometrics to argue the truth here. You are just trying to post your way out of this discussion by pretending you have said thing you didn't, that what you said was true and what your opponents say is uninformed.

The problem here is you are absolute alien to what Venezuela was and is. Yet, for some obscure reason, you have a compulsion to argue with a short resourceless repetitive bunch of lies and tenths of truths.

Look pal, I will continue to reply to any of your posts, no matter how twisted, repetitive and entangled you present their contents while you retreat. It could not be today, but I will. G'nite!

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Then don't be ignorant. Take a look at IMF's World Economic Outlook database, April 2018. You'll probably be surprized that there's five different measures of GDP per capita (with quite different numbers).

So why don't you tell us which measure argues your case best? Not that I am going to hold my breath...

[lupus_in_fabula]

You don't need econometrics for this one. You only need to fetch the data from the IMF database.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by Klimax

So why don't you tell us which measure argues your case best? Not that I am going to hold my breath...

What case? It is standard data: GDP per capita in current prices in U.S. dollars.

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

What case? It is standard data: GDP per capita in current prices in U.S. dollars.

Unfortunately, expected answer that is also wrong and misleading (only one slice through data). There are other fun data that shows that your chosen metric is grossly insufficient for assessment..

You may want to review other data.

Suggested comparison is Venezuela versus Columbia for further fun one can include also other Oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by Klimax

Unfortunately, expected answer that is also wrong and misleading (only one slice through data). There are other fun data that shows that your chosen metric is grossly insufficient for assessment..

You may want to review other data.

Suggested comparison is Venezuela versus Columbia for further fun one can include also other Oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, one standard measure is hardly enough to even begin an economic assessment. But what is actually misleading, is aleCcowaN:s repertoire of accusations that, for example, I made up the statistics. When that accusation turned out to be false, insisting that the numbers are "pre-cooked" and suggesting we should only look at IMF's numbers. Well, we are thus, finally, looking at the IMF's numbers (World Economic Outlook database), and surprise, surprise … they are comparable to the figures originally used.

Now, we can obviously compare neighboring countries to Venezuela for the same time period and/or compare the numbers for Venezuela at different time periods. So, for the latter case, you'll find that – using the same measure – GDP per capita prior to Chavez taking office weren't exactly stellar: falling from 4.7 in 1980 to under 3 in the 1990s and then struggling back to 4.1 in 1999 when Chavez took office. Would that be part of the story why Chavez came to power in the first place (or are the numbers prior to Chavez also "cooked")?

Make no mistake; the economic and political mismanagement is apparent throughout the decades prior, during and probably after Chavez.

[dann]

But I bet he was behind it anyway!

Originally Posted by Hans

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

No, I'm pretty sure that Chavez was behind the subprime mortgage crisis. He took all the money he stole from poor Venezuelans and invested it in the housing sector, and right now Maduro is planning to do the same thing when Trump privatizes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[Cainkane1]

Denmark has successful socialism as does Cuba. Socialism only seems to work for small nations.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Denmark has successful socialism as does Cuba. Socialism only seems to work for small nations.

Cuba's socialism is what counts as a success?

Wow, that is a low bar.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Denmark has successful socialism as does Cuba. Socialism only seems to work for small nations.

Last I heard Denmark was capitalist. They may have many social programs, but until the government begins to take the means of production, they are not socialist.

[Venom]

Denmark is full of social democrats, not so much socialists in the traditional sense.

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Yeah, one standard measure is hardly enough to even begin an economic assessment. But what is actually misleading, is aleCcowaN:s repertoire of accusations that, for example, I made up the statistics. When that accusation turned out to be false, insisting that the numbers are "pre-cooked" and suggesting we should only look at IMF's numbers. Well, we are thus, finally, looking at the IMF's numbers (World Economic Outlook database), and surprise, surprise … they are comparable to the figures originally used.

Now, we can obviously compare neighboring countries to Venezuela for the same time period and/or compare the numbers for Venezuela at different time periods. So, for the latter case, you'll find that – using the same measure – GDP per capita prior to Chavez taking office weren't exactly stellar: falling from 4.7 in 1980 to under 3 in the 1990s and then struggling back to 4.1 in 1999 when Chavez took office. Would that be part of the story why Chavez came to power in the first place (or are the numbers prior to Chavez also "cooked")?

Make no mistake; the economic and political mismanagement is apparent throughout the decades prior, during and probably after Chavez.

Do you really believe Chavez was success story?

For example raw GDP of Venezuela was very similar to Colombia's. (And Colombia had some fun with FARC till recent time!)
GDP/Purchase parity was identical with Colombia.
And inflation was twice of Colombia. (2002 three times and since then remained very high)

Also compare Venezuela's Real GDP grow to Colombia and Saudi Arabia in 1998-2000. Quite similar.

ETA:
GDP per capita, current prices/Purchasing power parity; international dollars per capita is quite flat for Venezuela since 1991.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by Klimax

Do you really believe Chavez was success story?

For example raw GDP of Venezuela was very similar to Colombia's. (And Colombia had some fun with FARC till recent time!)
GDP/Purchase parity was identical with Colombia.
And inflation was twice of Colombia. (2002 three times and since then remained very high)

Also compare Venezuela's Real GDP grow to Colombia and Saudi Arabia in 1998-2000. Quite similar.

ETA:
GDP per capita, current prices/Purchasing power parity; international dollars per capita is quite flat for Venezuela since 1991.

What part of ...

Quote:

Make no mistake; the economic and political mismanagement is apparent throughout the decades prior, during and probably after Chavez.

... do you think is indicative of claiming that Chavez was a success story?

The country has not been able to break away from the condition commonly referred to as the Dutch disease. Chavez tenure is certainly no exception in this regard.

[aleCcowaN]

Straight to the important information (I'll later take care of some other manipulative bits dropped in this thread)

Venezuela's oil production collapsing. It dropped to levels of 1947:



Just 1.278 million barrels per day, down from the 2.154 millions during 2016, 2.6 millions in 2014 and 3.3 millions the year before Chávez came into power.

Both Venezuela and PDVSA are in the verge of default.

Führer Maduro ordered oil production to increase in one million barrels per day. Would we have to wait to learn if oil production obeys?

[aleCcowaN]

Spates of violence and high tension throughout the continent because of the Venezuelan exodus Published today in La Nación, Buenos Aires. Use Google translate though it may be a little tricky.


Some points to highlight:

• Brazilian army sent to the border to stop violence between locals and Venezuelan migrants. In the little town of Pacaraima the population set on fire both tent villages where Venezuelans lived, shooting at them. Twelve hundreds of them returned to their country.
• More than 10% of the current population of the Brazilian state of Roraima is made up by Venezuelans recently fled from their country. Its capital, Boa Vista, is in state of crisis.
• Some 500 Venezuelans are entering Brazil each day. Way down from the 1,300 peak in January.
• Last Saturday Ecuador began blocking its land boundaries. Next Saturday Peru will do the same, as 20,000 Venezuelans entered the country just last week.
• A passport will be asked both in Ecuador and Peru for Venezuelans to enter their countries. As it is well known Venezuela is almost not issuing passports to prevent their population from emigrating and to discourage other countries as they are accepting people who may have criminal records [I add: you can have your passport if you pay a bribe. It's just other of the many business the fascists in power have]
• In Rumichaca, 3,000 Venezuelans cross the Colombia-Ecuador border each day [my comment: I suspect many of them participate in what we call contrabando hormiga (lit. ant-like smuggling) in order to survive and pay for their trips to the Southern Cone. That makes them cross the border many times]
• The Colombian officials are worried because all of this may force most Venezuelan migrants to stay in Colombia.

[aleCcowaN]

El Nacional, the last really independent newspaper, restricted to 5 issues a week owing the lack of paper. The problem is common to all the press and worsened since 2012 when Chávez created a monopoly to control the press (Trump must be dreaming with this). This newspaper survives with paper provided by other publishers in the continent.

In addition, El Nacional has been heavily fined for publishing news "that may offend officials" and its internet version blocked several times.

[El Universal used to have an English version of its website. It no longer exists]

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Just 1.278 million barrels per day, down from the 2.154 millions during 2016, 2.6 millions in 2014 and 3.3 millions the year before Chávez came into power.

Holy crap, that's a disaster.

Quote:

Führer Maduro ordered oil production to increase in one million barrels per day. Would we have to wait to learn if oil production obeys?

[aleCcowaN]

International reserves vanishing: just 8440 u$s millions. But they have the petro.

The Maduro solution: if you print a mountain of money and have hyperinflation as a result, then fabricate a mountain of cryptocurrency and say it is pegged to the price of something existent and guaranteed by something non-existent. Surely they will believe you and inflation will be over

Today it starts a new era in the economic history of Venezuela: its demise.

[aleCcowaN]

Corn production fell 58% in 10 years.

Year 2007:
650,000 hectares sowed; 2.4 million tons harvested; 100% of white corn consumption covered, 40% of yellow corn consumption covered.

Year 2017

350,000 hectares sowed; 1 million tons harvested; only 20% of white corn needs (human consumption) covered; just 35% of yellow corn needs (animal use) covered.

Keys: the government controls the availability of agrochemicals and fertilizers and interferes in the commercialization of seed and produce.

2017: Venezuela, 1 million tons; Argentina 39 million tons (half the country is desert) but only 23.5 million tons in 2015, last year of the pro-Chavist government in Argentina.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._courtiers.png

At least Canute knew he couldn't hold back the tide and was using it as a demonstration. I somehow don't think the same applies to Maduro...

[aleCcowaN]

Misael Ubeda, a Venezuelan industrial engineer, arrived to Buenos Aires 2 months ago and now works for Rappi (a competitor of Glovo) as a delivery bike messenger. Rappi and Glovo are said to have become informal consulates of Venezuela in Argentina.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by Klimax

ETA:
GDP per capita, current prices/Purchasing power parity; international dollars per capita is quite flat for Venezuela since 1991.

Btw., what time end-point are you referring to when you say it's quite flat since 1991?

Just to clarify: even if you use index measures like purchasing power parity (PPP) you should also be clear about why you choose that particular measure. Especially since empirical evidence for the validity of the PPP theory is inconclusive to say the least. To reiterate an old joke by national accountants: Only the nominal is real.

When it comes to the reign of Chaves (say 1999-2012), however, the story is quite similar regardless of whether you use current or constant PPP international dollars. Nevertheless, they do give a different longer term picture of economic development and context about the starting situation of his reign … and only one of them captures the fact that Venezuela's economy has been in a long-term decline since the late 1970s. That phenomenon is particularly well described in a book edited by Hausmann & Rodrígues: Venezuela Before Chávez – Anatomy of an Economic Collapse. That (longer) trend is also captured by using GDP per capita at constant domestic currency. And, I would argue, also by the standard nominal one for an international context and for countries overly dependent on foreign imports, i.e. current prices at U.S. dollars.

So, the different measures using IMF data:



And:

[Klimax]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Btw., what time end-point are you referring to when you say it's quite flat since 1991?
...

1991-2003

Although I must admit making sense of Venezuela is quite hard. (For example it had similar GDP as Colombia and similar changes...)

I suggest it is quite good idea to contrast Venezuela to Colombia and Saudi Arabia and using other data then per-capita. (Interestingly, your two graphs are only per-capita...)

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by Klimax

1991-2003

Although I must admit making sense of Venezuela is quite hard. (For example it had similar GDP as Colombia and similar changes...)

I suggest it is quite good idea to contrast Venezuela to Colombia and Saudi Arabia and using other data then per-capita. (Interestingly, your two graphs are only per-capita...)

Well, sure, other data is paramount for a proper assessment. But there's nothing inherently wrong with first using per capita data and evaluate which nominal/index measure in that category appears appropriate for the particular country in question. Comparisons between countries are trickier, especially if the motive nonetheless is to evaluate the impact of a single localized tenure like Chávez's. That can't properly be done without first having an idea of the prior economic evolution and institutional and structural path dependence in Venezuela.

So, I agree with Naím's remark with regards to the aforementioned book I alluded to in #226:

Originally Posted by J. Naím

This objective and expert evaluation of the Venezuelan economy will become an indispensable reference for any future debates on the legacy of the Chávez era

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Originally Posted by Klimax

So why don't you tell us which measure argues your case best? Not that I am going to hold my breath...

What case? It is standard data: GDP per capita in current prices in U.S. dollars.

There lies your on-going lying.

You started your puerile attempts at manipulation with this post of yours:

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.

trying to suggest by induced inference that somewhat the standard of living had raised dramatically during Chávez' "reign" -as you called it-.

Of course you don't have the slightest notion of what you are talking about in these economics matters and took whatever you found favourable to push your lie: a value reported by the Venezuelan regime and expressed in an alien currency. And before you continue to add more lies over your old one, the kind of measure you used has the purpose of comparing one country with other, and not comparing one country with itself. It also expresses the financial stand of that country.

You're probably going to ignore all of this -or quote small parts of this in order to distort them -, but you also projected your own surprise in this post of yours.

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Then don't be ignorant. Take a look at IMF's World Economic Outlook database, April 2018. You'll probably be surprized that there's five different measures of GDP per capita (with quite different numbers).

Yes, if you want to learn something instead of lying your way, you have GDP per capita in current dollars and in international dollars (or ppp). Still being wrong, you should have used the last for your fake comparison.

The naked truth is that when you want to show how a country's economy evolves you don't use GDP per capita expressed in current values nor in foreign currencies, not even when purchase parity is used. The only valid measure is GDP per capita in national currency and expressed in constant values. And for that you have the economic growth of the country which is expressed once the national account system is informed by the Central Bank and its deflator for the period is applied. That is what the IMF does and the central authority in Venezuela can't lie its way around -like you tried to do here- because the IMF partially audits their aggregates the same way I audit your posts here.

But you learnt nothing, and the only thing you tried to comment was these:

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.

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

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.

I'll repeat what I said to you for the first one: "Year 2012 is there for all to see. It gives a 14.6% growth in 14 years instead of a 14.5% in 15 years. Wow! What a striking difference! I managed to hide the complete success of Chávez.".

And I add now: as I already explained the GDP per capita didn't vary from 2012 to 2013

But the second one is a jewel. You can't be so gullible nor so blinded by the declaration of principles of trolling so masterly expressed in your own signature -badly disguised on purpose-, as to not realizing that the GDP of a country can't drop from 11.3 to 7.9 from one year to the next. You obviously realized your blunder in using these measures and decided to use a smoke screen to cover it up instead of apologizing for your ignorance.

That's the typical attitude of the totalitarian mentality: you had to be right, and from there everything is permissible and all of your mistakes are to be forsaken because you were right in the very beginning. It that department you are not so out of tune with the Chávez-Maduro regime.

[to be continued]

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

You don't need econometrics for this one. You only need to fetch the data from the IMF database.

translation: you don't need econometrics, you just need to fetch econometrics from the IMF database

reality: I did (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=174), you didn't.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

What case? It is standard data: GDP per capita in current prices in U.S. dollars.

"It is standard data". You're funny!


Explanations already given in my post above.


What case? You clearly never had a case.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

But what is actually misleading, is aleCcowaN:s repertoire of accusations that, for example, I made up the statistics. When that accusation turned out to be false, insisting that the numbers are "pre-cooked" and suggesting we should only look at IMF's numbers.

You were lying when presenting the 4K/12K scenario -and continue to sustain the same lie- by the simple fact that you endorsed fake statistics and presented them in a deceiving way. Anyone can be misguided by their passionate ideas, but by failing to admit what you did, you confirmed your original intentions. Is is that you're unable to understand it or you did but you are still "campaigning", it doesn't really matter. You are still trying to deceive people into believing the Chávez era was a golden one, and that can't be allowed in a forum about scepticism (yet you can support fascism all you want, it's your right)

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

What case? You clearly never had a case.

The only "case" for our particular discussion here has been about you insinuating I made up the numbers.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

You are still trying to deceive people into believing the Chávez era was a golden one, and that can't be allowed in a forum about scepticism (yet you can support fascism all you want, it's your right)

Case in point ... but now with an new (false) accusation.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

Now, we can obviously compare neighboring countries to Venezuela for the same time period and/or compare the numbers for Venezuela at different time periods. So, for the latter case, you'll find that – using the same measure – GDP per capita prior to Chavez taking office weren't exactly stellar: falling from 4.7 in 1980 to under 3 in the 1990s and then struggling back to 4.1 in 1999 when Chavez took office. Would that be part of the story why Chavez came to power in the first place (or are the numbers prior to Chavez also "cooked")?

And still, you fail to compare countries with statistics that are made to compare countries.

The right one is GPD per capita ppp. Let's use the IMF database and compare Venezuela with Colombia.

year	GDP ppp Colombia	GDP ppp Venezuela	population Colombia	population Venezuela	GDP ppp per capita Colombia	GDP per capita Venezuela	ratio Ve/Co
1990	165,940	185,510	33.2	19.8	4,998	9,369	1.875
1999	252,760	263,810	39.7	23.9	6,367	11,038	1.734
2012	565,310	538,210	46.6	29.9	12,108	18,000	1.487
2017	714,000	380,740	49.1	32	14,542	11,898	0.818

You don't like to be told you're lying ... so you continue to make "bad choices" with your data

And before you say anything dumb, the $ppp contains mostly Usian inflation, changes in the base of comparison and methodological errors when comparing tradable (like oil prices) and non-tradable sectors. For instance, for the 11038/18000 rise, 14.6% is the growth I already mentioned in post #174. The remaining 42.2% is mostly inflation in the USA (The US deflator for 1999 was 79.099 and for 2012 it was 103.945, that is a 31.4% increase)

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Venom

Denmark is full of social democrats, not so much socialists in the traditional sense.

Or the other way around, Denmark is full of real socialists, not so much of those marxist-leninists, maoists, trotskists and assorted fauna -including national socialists- that hides behind the "socialist" trade mark because it sells.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by lupus_in_fabula

The only "case" for our particular discussion here has been about you insinuating I made up the numbers.

C'mon, after your post #226, are you going to insist you didn't know the figures were a fake? How gullible do you think people are?

[aleCcowaN]

How gullible do you think people are? Are you trying to convince someone that your 4k/12k post was to show anything but Chávez success?

It doesn't matter the way you present it. You're now trying to show Chávez' time to be a mildly successful period in the middle of a long term failure.

Besides your use of the Dutch disease is a bit wobbly when you face the fact the Venezuela has had a permanent problem with her foreign debt and she was one of the most important oil producers before the period you mention. The problem looks more like public spending.

Not much of a Dutch disease when you compare the case with Chile and her copper. It looks like Chile is being pretty well managed by both conservative leaning and socialist leaning governments which alternate in power.

[Ziggurat]

This squabble about the GDP statistics is pointless.

You don't need GDP figures to know that Venezuela is a catastrophe. Countries which are doing well don't produce refugee crises. And the disaster is not due to the fall in oil prices. Oil prices are above where they were when Chavez took office. Chavez destroyed Venezuela, not bad luck, not saboteurs, not Bush or Obama or Trump, not any of the other countless excuses Maduro will come up with. That's the heart of the matter.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

It doesn't matter the way you present it. You're now trying to show Chávez' time to be a mildly successful period in the middle of a long term failure.

Besides your use of the Dutch disease is a bit wobbly when you face the fact the Venezuela has had a permanent problem with her foreign debt and she was one of the most important oil producers before the period you mention. The problem looks more like public spending.

Not much of a Dutch disease when you compare the case with Chile and her copper. It looks like Chile is being pretty well managed by both conservative leaning and socialist leaning governments which alternate in power.

Venezuela having been one of the most important oil producers in the past has no bearing on whether we should think the country suffers from the Dutch disease. And as Hausmann has suggested, it's not necessarily the below average growth rates in resource abundant countries that matters but "their incapacity to recover from adverse shocks". Not only do we see a long decline in growth rates, we have also seen a long decline in public and private investment in the non-oil sector. Combine that with a strategy of trying to maintain inflation with an appreciated exchange rate and erratic industrial policies and you've significantly lowered chances of export success in new sectors.

Furthermore, it seem the oil producing sector is idiosyncratic enough to make it even far less likely to transmit positive carry over to other high value-added industrial export sectors, as documented by Hausmann & Rodriguez:

Quote:

The key conclusion that we draw from this exercise is that oil exporting countries do not have an easy time developing new export products. Their difficulties come from the fact that there are few high-value goods which can be produced with the set of specialized inputs, technological know-how, and institutional development that are appropriate for oil production. This makes the product space relatively sparse for these countries. This may not be a problem if oil production is growing – in that case there is no need to develop alternative export sectors. But it can become a substantial hindrance to recovering from crises if doing so requires moving into the production of new goods.