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

[timhau]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Developing countries that respect private property and free markets get richer over time. The country and its population both. But poverty is never completely eradicated.

No, but it gets redefined to mean not destitution but a income below a certain percentage of median. Just because we call the long-term unemployed and largely unemployable Finn living on social security in a distinctly non-luxurious but well-equipped and modern public housing 'poor', doesn't mean he has anything in common with the orphan sifting through garbage for food in Bangladesh.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Venezuela ended a long time ago. Or began to end (Probably since the late 70's after hitting its economical peak) It's been a very long collapse toward the very depth of Hell.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

To be fair, Chavez was very successful.
As far as I know, there currently isn't a disenfranchised middle class in Venezuela.

Of course not. The Middle Class has always been hated by the Marxists, since in the Marxist view of the world you have the rich and the poor, and nothing in between. This is why Marx tried so hard to prove that the middle class is just a temporary,doomed phenomenon.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Of course not. The Middle Class has always been hated by the Marxists, since in the Marxist view of the world you have the rich and the poor, and nothing in between. This is why Marx tried so hard to prove that the middle class is just a temporary,doomed phenomenon.

Eh? Cites please. In Marxism classes are defined based on relationship to the means of production, not material wealth. The middle class as commonly understood does not translate conceptually the way e.g. working class does.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Of course not. The Middle Class has always been hated by the Marxists, since in the Marxist view of the world you have the rich and the poor, and nothing in between. This is why Marx tried so hard to prove that the middle class is just a temporary,doomed phenomenon.

I'm pretty sure that's the joke.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba

Eh? Cites please. In Marxism classes are defined based on relationship to the means of production, not material wealth. The middle class as commonly understood does not translate conceptually the way e.g. working class does.

Thus it is treated as a transient phenomenon in Marxism, a side effect of the evolutionary process from capitalism to communism.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Thus it is treated as a transient phenomenon in Marxism, a side effect of the evolutionary process from capitalism to communism.

Non sequitur. I believe there was an official line of that sort in the USSR though.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm pretty sure that's the joke.

Here's another one.

Q. What did Venezuelans use for light before candles?
A. Electricity.

[TubbaBlubba]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Here's another one.

Q. What did Venezuelans use for light before candles?
A. Electricity.

OK, that's pretty funny.

[aleCcowaN]

Among the 14,000 Venezuelans that are nowadays coming to live in Buenos Aires every month, hundreds of them are doing it on foot. This is the map of the odyssey of six of them who are being followed by journalists.

Just remember that, by plane, Hudson Bay is closer to Caracas than Buenos Aires, and by feet there's about the same distance between Caracas and Buenos Aires that between Caracas and Vancouver.

[I've just confirmed that, travelling by air, the distance between Caracas and Godthab/Nuuk in Greenland is like 600 miles longer than the distance between Caracas and Buenos Aires]

[Ziggurat]

Oh sure, when you write it in kilometers it looks far. But 8630 km is only 5362 miles. Doesn't seem so far now, does it?

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh sure, when you write it in kilometers it looks far. But 8630 km is only 5362 miles. Doesn't seem so far now, does it?

It's only 0.03 light seconds.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Among the 14,000 Venezuelans that are nowadays coming to live in Buenos Aires every month, hundreds of them are doing it on foot. This is the map of the odyssey of six of them who are being followed by journalists.

Just remember that, by plane, Hudson Bay is closer to Caracas than Buenos Aires, and by feet there's about the same distance between Caracas and Buenos Aires that between Caracas and Vancouver.

[I've just confirmed that, travelling by air, the distance between Caracas and Godthab/Nuuk in Greenland is like 600 miles longer than the distance between Caracas and Buenos Aires]

http://i63.tinypic.com/ny5tuw.jpg

Mother of god. That is sobering.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh sure, when you write it in kilometers it looks far. But 8630 km is only 5362 miles. Doesn't seem so far now, does it?

Originally Posted by Roboramma

It's only 0.03 light seconds.

Where's the Enterprise when you need her most?

[Garrison]

It seems Maduro has come up with a 'solution' for Venezuela's economic woes:

Venezuela crisis: Maduro to curb fuel subsidies


Yes the oil producing country is going to raise fuel prices for its impoverished citizens, well some of them anyway, the ones who don't support him:

Quote:

The president said that all Venezuelans who hold the "Fatherland ID", a government-issued identity card introduced by his administration in 2017, will continue to receive "direct subsidies" for "about two years".
However, many Venezuelans opposed to Mr Maduro's government have refused to get the ID cards, alleging they are used by officials to keep tabs on them.
The price rise is therefore expected to hit opponents of President Maduro in greater numbers than those who support him.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Garrison

It seems Maduro has come up with a 'solution' for Venezuela's economic woes:

Venezuela crisis: Maduro to curb fuel subsidies


Yes the oil producing country is going to raise fuel prices for its impoverished citizens, well some of them anyway, the ones who don't support him:

"All within the party, nothing outside the party, nothing against the party."

- Nicolás Maduro, probably

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Garrison

Yes the oil producing country is going to raise fuel prices for its impoverished citizens, well some of them anyway, the ones who don't support him:

Yeah, that seems bad until you realize they pay it in Venezuelan money.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Where's the Enterprise when you need her most?

Won't help. Prime directive.

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Won't help. Prime directive.

In the era of Captain Kirk, the Prime Directive only applies in the absence of hot women.

The weather forecasts alone will be enough to get Kirk to ignore that silly directive.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Yeah, that seems bad until you realize they pay it in Venezuelan money.

It's still bad when you consider the gap between the subsidized price and the free market price. If Maduro seriously wants to reduce black-market sales you would be looking at price rises in the thousands of percent range as a minimum.

ETA: As the BBC article points out

Quote:

The price of a litre of petrol in Venezuela currently stands at 1 bolivar. On the black market, Venezuelans pay more than 4m bolivares for one US dollar.
That means that for the equivalent of one dollar, Venezuelans can fill the tank of a medium-sized car about 720 times.

So Maduro isn't going to be stopping smuggling by setting the price at 5 or 10 Bolivars.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Garrison

It's still bad when you consider the gap between the subsidized price and the free market price. If Maduro seriously wants to reduce black-market sales you would be looking at price rises in the thousands of percent range as a minimum.

ETA: As the BBC article points out



So Maduro isn't going to be stopping smuggling by setting the price at 5 or 10 Bolivars.

But that's the whole point. Maduro's price controls are the reason for the economic collapse, so if he were willing to do that there wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

But that's the whole point. Maduro's price controls are the reason for the economic collapse, so if he were willing to do that there wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

No it really isn't the point, the point is his plan will probably put petrol out of reach for a lot of Venezuelans, mainly the ones who don't support him.

[Delvo]

What's the reason behind choosing Buenos Aires as the destination? It not is only a very long distance away but also speaks a different language, in an area where most of the other (also closer) choices don't.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Delvo

What's the reason behind choosing Buenos Aires as the destination? It not is only a very long distance away but also speaks a different language, in an area where most of the other (also closer) choices don't.

Not more different than Irish English and Australian English, at least in an educated level.

Here they are coming the most educated people. There is a lot of work opportunities here for them. They can enter the country and start working illegally -nobody will bother them for doing that- in supermarkets or so with wages between 12 and 20 Kpesos a month (what acquires goods worth 700 a 1,000 u$s a month) so they can live here pretty tight and yet save some 200 u$s a month to send to their relatives in Venezuela, and that's the point: 200 u$s in hand is a fortune in today's Venezuela.

Additionally, a nurse with diploma can get here 30/35,000 pesos a month working some extra shift and so with a lot of professions like anything related to computers, engineering etc.

Those are opportunities they are not going to get in the Brazilian jungle, Ecuador or Bolivia. And there are too many of them -the poorer and less educated ones- in Colombia for them to get a decent job.

And we're getting less than 20,000 Venezuelans a month while some 100-150,000 are fleeing the country in the same period. The only problem besides the distance is that they adapt badly to our mild winter. A temperature of 5°C (41°F) with strong wind and you see them shivering under layers and layers of clothes.

[Venom]

Seeing many posters giddy over Venezuela failing, presumably because it feeds their misconceptions about socialist or social democratic advances in Western democracies.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by Venom

Seeing many posters giddy over Venezuela failing, presumably because it feeds their misconceptions about socialist or social democratic advances in Western democracies.

Specially when it was always so difficult to spot the differences between Chavez' national socialism and Mussolini's fascism. No wonder the opposition -which includes several socialist and communist parties- campaigns this way:



labeled: "We're so alike!" (which means that gruesome misconceptions go both ways)

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Venom

Seeing many posters giddy over Venezuela failing, presumably because it feeds their misconceptions about socialist or social democratic advances in Western democracies.

Name one of the posters. I'm looking around and I don't see anyone happy about this.

[aleCcowaN]

Ecuador declares an immigration emergency due to the arrival of 4,200 Venezuelans per day

My translation

Quote:

[The statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs] added that the state of emergency, declared owing to the daily arrival of up to 4,200 Venezuelans, applies to the provinces of Carchi (north and border with Colombia), Pichincha and El Oro (bordering Peru).

"The objective is to establish a contingency plan and the necessary actions and procedures for humanitarian assistance," to the Venezuelan migrants, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

I suppose the emergency plan in the border with Peru is giving each migrant a sandwich and a bottle of water and pushing them southwards so they can reach their intended destinations in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. That may be complemented with the emergency in the Colombian border consisting in the same kit of sandwich and water plus placing them on army lorries and transporting them quickly to the southern border, which may take, what? seven, eight hours (after all Ecuador is just the size of Arizona or Italy)

[aleCcowaN]

The population of Argentina was officially estimated to be 44,495,000 last July 1st, 450,000 above the 44,045,000 inhabitants estimated one year before (a 1.02% growth). From them, 215,000 were foreigners who came here both legally and illegally. And from them 60,000 are Venezuelans, with monthly figures of 3,000 at the beginning of the period and 10,000 at its end.

So 48% of the growth of Argentina's population comes from aliens and now 25% of the total growth are Venezuelans.

Thank Darwin there's no much of the Trump-supporter mentality here. Sure there are people who look with suspicion the 3,000 Chinese and 8,000 Africans who settled here during those 12 months, but not too much ado about that.

And before somebody asks, the increasing stream of Venezuelans not only comes from the disintegration of their country but from the Venezuelan residents who by their growing number can send more money to finance their relatives' and friends' trips into this land. Besides the increasingly known know-how about how to make the trip in just six or seven days using buses and the occasional cheap motel to take a shower.

The question is, has this phenomenon peaked yet? Not that the population of Buenos Aires continues to grow madly with the native population dwindling and all the growth and replacement being mostly foreigners. This is not a novelty as it's been happening since 1929, with Latin Americans taking the lead during the last 55 years.

[dudalb]

I am also getting amused by a poster here who constanly tries to explain why Karl Marx did not really mean what Karl Marx said.

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I am also getting amused by a poster here who constanly tries to explain why Karl Marx did not really mean what Karl Marx said.

How interesting! Who is it?

[dann]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

How interesting! Who is it?

That would be me, I guess, but dudalb's got it all wrong, of course. I was merely pointing out that an obviously fake quotation attributed to Marx was actually made up by an anti-communist. No wonder dudalb's offended by a post like that! He would have preferred to believe that it was written by Marx, and I bet that when he sees it in the future, he'll be the last person to point out the lie. Even now, he insists that the lie isn't a lie: "... why Karl Marx did not really mean what Karl Marx said." It should have been: "... why Karl Marx did not mean what some anti-communist made up and presented as a Lenin (!) quotation."
Liars gonna lie ...

What offended him in this thread, however, was probably Venom’s post #145 pointing out that some people watch the Venezuelan tragedy with glee because they don't see what's behind it, the fluctuations of the price of oil (always the Achilles' heel of the Venezuelan economy) and how it is affecting Venezuelans now, but instead consider it to be the proof that socialism - and with socialism even "socialist or social democratic advances in Western democracies" - doesn't work.

But dudalb is probably even more offended because I pointed out some of the lies that Fox Business News host Trish Regan presented in a recent segment comparing Venezuela to Denmark. That the Danish ambassador in the USA instead compared Denmark to the USA in a fact sheet probably didn't make dudalb happier ...

You know, it's a little like when Cubans try to emigrate to the USA: It's proof positive that socialism doesn't work! When other Latin Americans try to do the same thing, however, it's because they are rapists and drug smugglers ...

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by dann

That would be me, I guess, but dudalb's got it all wrong, of course. I was merely pointing out that an obviously fake quotation attributed to Marx was actually made up by an anti-communist. No wonder dudalb's offended by a post like that! He would have preferred to believe that it was written by Marx, and I bet that when he sees it in the future, he'll be the last person to point out the lie. Even now, he insists that the lie isn't a lie: "... why Karl Marx did not really mean what Karl Marx said." It should have been: "... why Karl Marx did not mean what some anti-communist made up and presented as a Lenin (!) quotation."
Liars gonna lie ...

What offended him in this thread, however, was probably Venom’s post #145 pointing out that some people watch the Venezuelan tragedy with glee because they don't see what's behind it, the fluctuations of the price of oil (always the Achilles' heel of the Venezuelan economy) and how it is affecting Venezuelans now, but instead consider it to be the proof that socialism - and with socialism even "socialist or social democratic advances in Western democracies" - doesn't work.

But dudalb is probably even more offended because I pointed out some of the lies that Fox Business News host Trish Regan presented in a recent segment comparing Venezuela to Denmark. That the Danish ambassador in the USA instead compared Denmark to the USA in a fact sheet probably didn't make dudalb happier ...

You know, it's a little like when Cubans try to emigrate to the USA: It's proof positive that socialism doesn't work! When other Latin Americans try to do the same thing, however, it's because they are rapists and drug smugglers ...

Thank you for such a detailed reply.

Marx is to be taken with a sack of salt. He's very important in the history of economics -to learn what to do, and mostly, to learn what not to do-, he's like everything in the communist branch of ideologies: like bubble gum, to be chewed -even if it becomes tasteless very soon- but never to be swallowed.

Marx was a prolific and controversial author who praised the action of Usaian unions and considered them the example to be followed in Europe. He also considered his system capable to create the plural freedom Internet is indeed -and from a quite different departure- helping to build nowadays.

But I wonder, what has Marx to do with Venezuela? The Venezuelan regime is nothing more than a bunch of fascists that used the label "socialism" just because it sells better -not because it is better- and because of the path corruption in the Third World followed in the last 35 years. Chavism is just like every military-populist initiative in Latin America during the last century. And it chose the socialist label -and a few of its ways for symbolic reasons- just because corruption money in Switzerland and other capitalist economies became an impossibility from the mid 80s on, so the new Noriegas, the new Ferdinand Marcos, the new Batistas, the new Suhartos, all of them, including Chávez, turned to communist countries who are the new haven for shady foreign investors -who they will protect if they, in appearance, remain in their side of the political divide- . Private businesses in Cuba or Vietnam, for example, are the refugee for the corrupt money of these newly self-discovered apostles of the increasingly conservative "left".

As it has been said always in Latin America: these guys gesticulate with their left hands and shove the money into their pockets with their right ones.

[dann]

Originally Posted by aleCcowaN

Thank you for such a detailed reply.

Marx is to be taken with a sack of salt. He's very important in the history of economics -to learn what to do, and mostly, to learn what not to do-, he's like everything in the communist branch of ideologies: like bubble gum, to be chewed -even if it becomes tasteless very soon- but never to be swallowed.

You never actually read any Marx, in particular Capital, did you? It's very cheap nowadays.

Quote:

Marx was a prolific and controversial author who praised the action of Usaian unions and considered them the example to be followed in Europe. He also considered his system capable to create the plural freedom Internet is indeed -and from a quite different departure- helping to build nowadays.

No, I don't think he had the faintest idea that the internet would ever exist, but in his days he had problems of his own with censorship - in several countries, actually. I have no idea what you mean by his "system". Quotations, please.

Quote:

But I wonder, what has Marx to do with Venezuela?

So do I, but you would have to ask dudalb, who is the one who brought it up in this thread. I guess that he won't answer you. Like I said, I think he was just offended because I pointed out that Marx never said something that dudalb would like to imagine that he said, so in order to stay in his delusion he pretends that I am the one who's in denial; that I won't acknowledge that Marx said something ... that he never actually said. (I've seen similar fake Che Guevara quotations on the internet.)

Quote:

The Venezuelan regime is nothing more than a bunch of fascists that used the label "socialism" just because it sells better -not because it is better- and because of the path corruption in the Third World followed in the last 35 years. Chavism is just like every military-populist initiative in Latin America during the last century. And it chose the socialist label -and a few of its ways for symbolic reasons- just because corruption money in Switzerland and other capitalist economies became an impossibility from the mid 80s on, so the new Noriegas, the new Ferdinand Marcos, the new Batistas, the new Suhartos, all of them, including Chávez, turned to communist countries who are the new haven for shady foreign investors -who they will protect if they, in appearance, remain in their side of the political divide- . Private businesses in Cuba or Vietnam, for example, are the refugee for the corrupt money of these newly self-discovered apostles of the increasingly conservative "left".

No, Chavism isn't "just like every military-populist initiative in Latin America during the last century," and it never was. It didn't just choose "a label ... for symbolic reasons." And Chavez and Maduro weren't/aren't simply "the new Noriegas, the new Ferdinand Marcos, the new Batistas, the new Suhartos," even though you may not be able to tell the difference. Chavez and Maduro had some good intentions: to let ordinary Venezuelans benefit from the massive revenue from oil sales, which went quite well as long as the international price of oil was high, which it was for most of Chavez's years as the president. Nowadays, not so much ...

Quote:

As it has been said always in Latin America: these guys gesticulate with their left hands and shove the money into their pockets with their right ones.

That it always has been said doesn't make it so.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dann

Chavez and Maduro had some good intentions: to let ordinary Venezuelans benefit from the massive revenue from oil sales, which went quite well as long as the international price of oil was high, which it was for most of Chavez's years as the president. Nowadays, not so much ...

Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Qatar all follow the exact same economic model: Nationalized oil wealth paid out to the citizenry. And all four of those nations are subject to the exact same oil market conditions. But only one of those nations looks like Venezuela today. I think your assessment of Venezuela is naive and oversimplified.

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by dann

No, Chavism isn't "just like every military-populist initiative in Latin America during the last century," and it never was. It didn't just choose "a label ... for symbolic reasons." And Chavez and Maduro weren't/aren't simply "the new Noriegas, the new Ferdinand Marcos, the new Batistas, the new Suhartos," even though you may not be able to tell the difference. Chavez and Maduro had some good intentions: to let ordinary Venezuelans benefit from the massive revenue from oil sales, which went quite well as long as the international price of oil was high, which it was for most of Chavez's years as the president. Nowadays, not so much ...

This is wrong on so many levels.

First and foremost, Chavez and Maduro never had good intentions. Only rubes believe that. They sought popular support by bribing the poor with oil revenues, but it was always in pursuit of their own power and wealth. Chavez didn't become rich by accident, and he didn't become rich in order to help the poor.

Second, oil prices have come down considerably from their peak, but they are still well above when Chavez took over. When he was inaugurated in Feb. 1999, oil was around $20/barrel, well below where we are now. You can't blame the collapse on a decrease in oil prices. That merely hastened the inevitable. Venezuela's oil production output is cratering, and their exports were in decline even as oil prices skyrocketed in the 2000's. That's not bad luck. That's bad choices.

[lupus_in_fabula]

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

[aleCcowaN]

Originally Posted by dann

You never actually read any Marx, in particular Capital, did you? It's very cheap nowadays.

Just the CliffNotes (resúmenes Lerú, here). I wouldn't lose my time reading it.

Besides Mein Kampf would give me a more precise vision of what's been happening in my own continent and what the likes of Chávez have in their minds.

What I said is that there is little historical distance from Robespierre to Marx: both are very old and somewhat secondary references. If you want to recommend something dealing with Marx that is relevant to the modern world, just recommend Schumpeter's Ten Great Economists from Marx to Keynes.

Originally Posted by dann

No, I don't think he had the faintest idea that the internet would ever exist, but in his days he had problems of his own with censorship - in several countries, actually.

subject of the sentence: "plural freedom", not "Internet".

Originally Posted by dann

I have no idea what you mean by his "system". Quotations, please.



...

Chavez and Maduro had some good intentions: to let ordinary Venezuelans benefit from the massive revenue from oil sales

How you dare to ask for explanations and quotations when a few lines below you show such worrying signs of naïveté.

Besides it's obvious you're alien to the Latin American experience: oil money was intended to buy loyalties, and in a representative democracy the cheapest loyalties to buy are the poor's.

Originally Posted by dann

That it always has been said doesn't make it so.

Is this your signature winning argument?

[aleCcowaN]

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.

Are you in the business of making up statistics?

[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?