Socialism at Work In Venezuela

[Viking]

It’s not silly. A good, positive culture will flourish under nearly any form of government as long as it has a good leader; Norway seems to have both a positive culture and a decent leader.

It also doesn’t hurt that they have a decent cash resource.

The silliness wasn't pointed at you; but at CR. Sorry about that.

A cash resource you say; well, which cash resource does Sweden have (a country with 2x the population)? Iceland? Denmark?

[yesdachi]

A cash resource you say; well, which cash resource does Sweden have (a country with 2x the population)? Iceland? Denmark?

I was referring to Norway with the cash resource comment. Sweden is a mess and I don’t know much about Iceland and Denmark.

[Viking]

I was referring to Norway with the cash resource comment. Sweden is a mess and I don’t know much about Iceland and Denmark.

I know, but if you look at lists like... this and this it becomes relevant as Norway isn't much more socialistic than these countries, AFAIK; and they have no oil.

[Ironside]

Sweden is a mess

Que?

Last time checked we're still in the top 5 countries in the world when it comes
life quality and still keeps going strong when it comes to the economy.

Edit: Viking gave some links telling exactly that thing.

[Jolt]

Socialism causes bad management.

CR

Uh? Care to expand upon that? Why? How?

The way I see it, Socialism would have prevented this crisis. Socialism prevents dumbass market speculators et al. which have been behind this crisis.

[Koga No Goshi]

Uh? Care to expand upon that? Why? How?

The way I see it, Socialism would have prevented this crisis. Socialism prevents dumbass market speculators et al. which have been behind this crisis.

Hehe, if Socialism causes bad management then what is our excuse?

[yesdachi]

Que?

Last time checked we're still in the top 5 countries in the world when it comes
life quality and still keeps going strong when it comes to the economy.

Edit: Viking gave some links telling exactly that thing.

you have Kadagar, need i say more. just kidding just kidding.

I get the impression that Sweden is teetering on the brink of being overrun by immigrants and collapsing under the strain, changing the culture dramatically for the worse. Just the impression I get.

[Koga No Goshi]

People in the U.S. perceive that we are "swarmed" with immigration, but actually http://www.hispanic5.com/foreign_bor...ecord_high.htm our foreign-born population is only 20% of the population, as opposed to 35% back in 1910.

Regarding Sweden, its foreign-born population is 12%, half of Australia's foreign-born percentage and behind Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg. I think they'll survive.

[yesdachi]

People in the U.S. perceive that we are "swarmed" with immigration, but actually http://www.hispanic5.com/foreign_bor...ecord_high.htm our foreign-born population is only 20% of the population, as opposed to 35% back in 1910.

Regarding Sweden, its foreign-born population is 12%, half of Australia's foreign-born percentage and behind Canada, the U.S., New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Luxembourg. I think they'll survive.

Interesting read but it is 4 years old. I bet the percentage is a little higher with the illegal number added.

[Koga No Goshi]

Interesting read but it is 4 years old. I bet the percentage is a little higher with the illegal number added.

Census data is always behind. No helping that.

[Tribesman]

I get the impression that Sweden is teetering on the brink of being overrun by immigrants and collapsing under the strain, changing the culture dramatically for the worse. Just the impression I get.

Well thats no surprise , if you want to avoid getting that false impression then start treating the postings of a certain Dutch fella concerning immigration with a grain of salt....or should that be a very very large sack of salt .

But hey back to topic... Rabbit was too early , another meeting went ahead today where they voted again to cut production even further , apparently they have this thing about the problem that occured before 1998 ...you know 1998 the year mentioned as having more oil produced than 10 years later
Oh them damn socialists eh , whodathunk all them Arab oil sheiks were really socialists .
BTW Rabbit , any luck trying to educate yourself about the Opec quota system yet?Perhaps you could do something simpler .....like explain the massive drop in Saudi production since 2006 Or their massive increase in 2003 It might help you get some of the basics
But hmmmmm....oh yeah this was about Venezuela production wasn't it ...what is the date that venezuela has put on new production ? you know new production as in new expanded production after a big outlay lots of development and lots and lots and lots of foriegn investment ?

[Ironside]

you have Kadagar, need i say more. just kidding just kidding.

I get the impression that Sweden is teetering on the brink of being overrun by immigrants and collapsing under the strain, changing the culture dramatically for the worse. Just the impression I get.

On the immigration it's problematic form is mostly located to particular regions that's been ghettofied, while certainly not good it's not really a new problem, neither here in Sweden or in other places. The problem is that it takes time (as in decades) to fix.
But basically, only listening to Fragony (and most of the news here as they are having odd selection processes) will give you about the same view as looking at the Wire and think that the ghettos there are representative to the US as a whole.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So which is it tribesy, that Venezuela has low production on purpose because they want to keep prices high, or are they investing lots of money to ramp up production?



In short, links or you are lying.

Uh? Care to expand upon that? Why? How?

Socialism removes the main motive for running successful companies: profit. It distorts the best method for producing what people want, and so causes bad decisions in regards to what should be produced, who should be hired, etc.

And I don't think of Norway and Sweden as being as socialistic as Venzuela; have they nationalized all the large companies in those countries?

CR

[yesdachi]

On the immigration it's problematic form is mostly located to particular regions that's been ghettofied, while certainly not good it's not really a new problem, neither here in Sweden or in other places. The problem is that it takes time (as in decades) to fix.
But basically, only listening to Fragony (and most of the news here as they are having odd selection processes) will give you about the same view as looking at the Wire and think that the ghettos there are representative to the US as a whole.

But isn’t it true that cities like Malmo already have a higher population of Muslims than Swedes? Sounds like a growing occurrence.

[rvg]

But isn’t it true that cities like Malmo already have a higher population of Muslims than Swedes? Sounds like a growing occurrence.

You mean like Dearborn? :)

[Koga No Goshi]

You mean like Dearborn? :)

I am not sure those are comparable. The Dearborn Middle Eastern population is overwhelmingly "first wave"; middle class, educated, skilled professionals. Doctors and business owners.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Slightly related, the International Herald Tribune ran a nice article. Maybe Chavez should've had invested Venezuela's oil revenue's into developing Venezuela for its poor, instead of using it to further his vain ideological adventures.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As the price of oil roared to ever higher levels in recent years, the leaders of Venezuela, Iran and Russia muscled their way onto the world stage, using checkbook diplomacy and, on occasion, intimidation. Now, plummeting oil prices are raising questions about whether the countries can sustain their spending — and their bids to challenge United States hegemony. For all three nations, oil money was a means to an ideological end.

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela used it to jump-start a socialist-inspired revolution in his country and to back a cadre of like-minded leaders in Latin America who were intent on eroding once-dominant American influence. But such ambitions are harder to finance when oil is at $74.25 a barrel, its closing price Monday in New York, than when it is at $147, its price as recently as three months ago.

Chávez was emphatic last month when he announced that Venezuela would engage in naval exercises with the Russian Navy in the Caribbean. "Go ahead and squeal, Yanquis," he said. "Russia's naval fleet is welcome here." The moment, made possible in part by a flood of petrodollars used to buy Russian weaponry, must have been sweet for a man who has spent his presidency wagging his finger at the United States and railing against its capitalist model. Cozying up to Russia, whose leaders have been increasingly at odds with the United States, evoked cold war rivalries in the hemisphere.

Chávez has also used his oil money — in direct payments and through subsidized oil shipments — to win friends in the hemisphere and elsewhere, including President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who expelled the United States ambassador in La Paz last month, saying the envoy was involved in plotting a coup.

Domestic spending in Venezuela has also surged, through the creation of a wide array of social welfare programs that furthered Chávez's goal of building a socialist-inspired state — and suppressed opposition. The 2009 budget, based on $60-a-barrel oil, includes a 23 percent increase in government spending, to $78.9 billion. At $140 a barrel for oil, that was conservative. With prices now uncomfortably close to $60 a barrel, economists in Venezuela are expressing alarm over the government's ability to pay its bills, including those for arms purchases.

Venezuelans are already struggling with an inflation rate of 36 percent, one of the highest in the world. Chávez said on Saturday that the country could endure any oil price decline, citing its $40 billion in foreign currency reserves, though he then qualified his remarks by saying that oil prices at $80 to $90 a barrel would be sufficient for his plans.

Still, fears of an impending economic crisis in Venezuela are increasing because of a lack of transparency in public finances and because the economy has grown far more dependent on oil in the decade Chávez has been in power, with seizures of rural estates weakening agricultural output and nationalizations scaring away foreign investors.

"This country will be paralyzed because it is so dependent on petroleum," said Oscar García Mendoza, president of Banco Venezolano de Credito, a private bank. Anxiety over the economy already helped lead to a sell-off of Venezuelan government bonds, sharply limiting the country's borrowing options. Last week, Venezuela's embassy in Nicaragua said the Caracas government would postpone construction of a $4 billion oil refinery there. And the national oil company announced that it would tighten the terms for subsidizing oil exports to some Caribbean countries.

[Tribesman]

In short, links or you are lying.

Change the record Rabbit , you repeatedly call out liar when you clearly havn't got the faintest idea what you are on about . You are the one that posted a load of bollox and are unable to understand even the simplest things .

Look even ......

So which is it tribesy, that Venezuela has low production on purpose because they want to keep prices high, or are they investing lots of money to ramp up production?

...shows that you havn't got the faintest idea what you are on about .
If you did you might understand , after all its not like the plans for the development of the belt have been discussed here about half a dozen times already , or the new contracts , or the new tanker fleet , terminals and pipelines .
You do however repeatedly post piles of rubbish again and again on a range of subjects long after it has been established that your "facts" are pure bollox .

Interesting read Louis , however it was written before the latest move to boost prices again by further cutting production .There are two things to note , much depends on China and their prospects of weathering the financial storm , plus of course Russias recent moves to join the price fixing cartel . Though that would require unanimiity and perhaps America could apply sufficient pressure on its favourite socialist shieks to vote no . Then again with Americas Socialism sending their economy down the pan maybe they havn't enough money to bribe enough of them royal socialists anymore , maybe they will bribe Nigeria instead .

[Jolt]

Socialism removes the main motive for running successful companies: profit. It distorts the best method for producing what people want, and so causes bad decisions in regards to what should be produced, who should be hired, etc.

And I don't think of Norway and Sweden as being as socialistic as Venzuela; have they nationalized all the large companies in those countries?

CR

Wait. You're confusing Socialism with Communism. Socialism doesn't remove profit from companies. What it does is using the taxes it gets from the companies and redistributes it to the other parts which the State views as necessary investment for the society, benefiting those who otherwise wouldn't have money to invest in it. Contrarily, Liberal States view profits of a company should be exclusively used by the economic agent that is the company (And it's main participants in the Market of Production factors, being those the ones who supply the company with capital, rather than the ones who supply it with labour.) Companies still make profits in both views. You have plenty of examples of well established and profitable companies originating from Socialist States. The major one I can remember is IKEA.

Once again, it doesn't distort any method whatsoever since a Socialist State can't possibly shape what people want, therefore it doesn't cause bad decisions in what should be produced, since the State doesn't, and can't even decide what a company can produce (So long as what the company wishes to produce is legal). Nor does it decide who can or can't be hired, that is entirely up for the company. What a Socialist State does is try to steer an economy into something that is wanted for the country (It would be extremely stupid if governments wouldn't try to steer their economies into producing and incentivating more Renewable Energy and Renewable Energy companies), and that is done by providing benefits (To build and use renewable energy or employ older people, for instance). It doesn't force a company to have to resort to employing older people, it gives the company the choice between supporting older people, who normally have higher rates of "Long-term Unemployment" (Which is a blight on any economy who wishes to be positive) and who might (Or not.) work less efficiently, thus gaining some tax cuts, OR not employing older people, having younger people working more efficiently (Or not.) and pay up normally as any other company would. In the end, the company needs to check if it's worth hiring older people or not.

In the Liberal Country, older people would be stuck because companies generally prefer younger people who, stereotypically, supposedly have more energy and efficiency than their older counterparts, thus trapping perpetually older unemployed people in the "Long-Term Unemployment", until they decide to take a job not suited to their skills, and being forced to accept lower payments.
Social-Darwinism? I call these views plain stupid.

As you can see, a Socialist State doesn't force companies to do its bidding, it gives incentives and uses part of a company's profits (Like a Liberal Government does, really, but to a lesser extent) so we can live in a more equal society.

[LittleGrizzly]

Well put Jolt!

now an attempt to guess at a clapping smiley

[Tribesman]

Good post Jolt , but I think you are wasting your time , he will get to the fourth word and then go into mental block mode .
BTW you didn't put in a link so you are lying

[CountArach]

Socialism removes the main motive for running successful companies: profit. It distorts the best method for producing what people want, and so causes bad decisions in regards to what should be produced, who should be hired, etc.

Or, I dunno, we could... vote them out?

[HoreTore]

Socialism removes the main motive for running successful companies: profit. It distorts the best method for producing what people want, and so causes bad decisions in regards to what should be produced, who should be hired, etc.

And I don't think of Norway and Sweden as being as socialistic as Venzuela; have they nationalized all the large companies in those countries?

CR

No, we have not. Hence why I would call our brand 21th century socialism. Planned economies goes in the 20th century bin.

And that last point by CA is good. Take health care for example, as that seems to be a major argument against socialism, the argument being that you're stuck with whatever the state wants to give you. That's simply not true. What actually happens, is that we have 7 parties who all desperately try to come up with the best health care system(all of which being public and free), because they know that a good health care plan is a very solid card to get elected. And, should the population be satisfied with your job and they think you improved it over your predecessor, your chance of re-election is vastly improved. That's the capitalist incentive system, but with no billionaires and free health services for the population. Win-win.

The idea that governments can't run a successful business because there is no incentive to good is rubbish. There is power to be gained, and power to be lost.

Also, let's say government X wants to establish company Y. Who do you think they'll get to run it? A party member? Hah, no, they get the exact same guys a private company would, and pay them the same. The difference is that as owners, a government won't pocket the profits, they give the profits back to the population.

[Fragony]

Que?

Last time checked we're still in the top 5 countries in the world when it comes
life quality and still keeps going strong when it comes to the economy.

Edit: Viking gave some links telling exactly that thing.

[Ironside]

But isn’t it true that cities like Malmo already have a higher population of Muslims than Swedes? Sounds like a growing occurrence.

While there's a growing occurance (due to immigration and higher birthrates), cities like Malmö does not have a higher population of Muslims than Swedes, not even more immigrants than Swedes (immigrants also consist of those foreginers known as Danes, Poles, Finns, Germans, Hungarians to name some large groups living in Malmö).

It's true for some regions inside cities like Malmö though.

Edit: Trying to summon your inner tribesman Fragony?

[Fragony]

Are you kidding me it's still early in the morning, coffee it is

Sweden

[Crazed Rabbit]

Wait. You're confusing Socialism with Communism. Socialism doesn't remove profit from companies. What it does is using the taxes it gets from the companies and redistributes it to the other parts which the State views as necessary investment for the society, benefiting those who otherwise wouldn't have money to invest in it. Contrarily, Liberal States view profits of a company should be exclusively used by the economic agent that is the company (And it's main participants in the Market of Production factors, being those the ones who supply the company with capital, rather than the ones who supply it with labour.) Companies still make profits in both views. You have plenty of examples of well established and profitable companies originating from Socialist States. The major one I can remember is IKEA.

Once again, it doesn't distort any method whatsoever since a Socialist State can't possibly shape what people want, therefore it doesn't cause bad decisions in what should be produced, since the State doesn't, and can't even decide what a company can produce (So long as what the company wishes to produce is legal). Nor does it decide who can or can't be hired, that is entirely up for the company. What a Socialist State does is try to steer an economy into something that is wanted for the country (It would be extremely stupid if governments wouldn't try to steer their economies into producing and incentivating more Renewable Energy and Renewable Energy companies), and that is done by providing benefits (To build and use renewable energy or employ older people, for instance). It doesn't force a company to have to resort to employing older people, it gives the company the choice between supporting older people, who normally have higher rates of "Long-term Unemployment" (Which is a blight on any economy who wishes to be positive) and who might (Or not.) work less efficiently, thus gaining some tax cuts, OR not employing older people, having younger people working more efficiently (Or not.) and pay up normally as any other company would. In the end, the company needs to check if it's worth hiring older people or not.

In the Liberal Country, older people would be stuck because companies generally prefer younger people who, stereotypically, supposedly have more energy and efficiency than their older counterparts, thus trapping perpetually older unemployed people in the "Long-Term Unemployment", until they decide to take a job not suited to their skills, and being forced to accept lower payments.
Social-Darwinism? I call these views plain stupid.

As you can see, a Socialist State doesn't force companies to do its bidding, it gives incentives and uses part of a company's profits (Like a Liberal Government does, really, but to a lesser extent) so we can live in a more equal society.

Hmm. I don't think having taxes and using the money to fund unrelated programs is socialism; if that was the case, you could call the US socialist (and not just doing some socialist things). I view it as the state having control over companies, in brief.

I'd classify the heavy taxes state you described as more of a welfare state (assuming that's one of the type of things they use the tax money for).

And I don't understand your bit about elderly workers; here in the US the older people in a profession generally earn more because they have experience.

The idea that governments can't run a successful business because there is no incentive to good is rubbish. There is power to be gained, and power to be lost.

Also, let's say government X wants to establish company Y. Who do you think they'll get to run it? A party member? Hah, no, they get the exact same guys a private company would, and pay them the same. The difference is that as owners, a government won't pocket the profits, they give the profits back to the population.

And would that company go bankrupt if they ran out of money, or would they have the government fund them in that case, which would lead to a change from free market risk evaluation and planning? Have you heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Look at the original article:

"There is a bottleneck in the Venezuelan production system," said Mazhar al-Sheridah, 68, an oil expert at the Central University of Venezuela. "It will cost at least $32 billion to build another three upgrading units and take some five years, meaning that Venezuelan production is stuck at current levels for a while yet."

Venezuela's production is stuck right now. They have more problems providing basic services.

Anyway, what interesting to me is that none of the normal Chavez defenders have come out of the woodwork to speak for him, none of the people who were willing to give him time to see if he could improve the country, none of them who lauded him, none of those who didn't want to criticize him at first because he might help the people.

tribesy; have fun on your trip to irrelevenceville.

CR

[HoreTore]

And would that company go bankrupt if they ran out of money, or would they have the government fund them in that case, which would lead to a change from free market risk evaluation and planning? Have you heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Of course. Let's say you have two parties. Party one is in control of government, and has an important corporation about to fail. Party two is in opposition, and has a plan to save the day. Who's going to win the election?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is far, far away from a public service. It's a private and public hybrid, and that's doomed to fail.

[Jolt]

Hmm. I don't think having taxes and using the money to fund unrelated programs is socialism; if that was the case, you could call the US socialist (and not just doing some socialist things). I view it as the state having control over companies, in brief.

That is wrong. A liberal state generally sees the funding of "unrelated problems" completely to the private sector (e.g. Because the people want something, the government doesn't need to bother with it, since private companies will quickly cover for it, in a chance to make profit. The greatest/by far the most blatant example is the said "US National Health System" <- That is called "Laissez-Faire"). In a Socialist point of view, the Government views itself as having the responsibility to endorse and support what the people want, making public funding for it, or public/private co-funding (e.g. Using the example I just gave, European Health Systems). It's pretty laughable that you view Socialism as a "State that controls companies." As I explained in my previous post, that isn't true. Very far from it, actually. Your view of Socialism, as I already said, is actually Communism. Does the Swedish government control IKEA?

I'd classify the heavy taxes state you described as more of a welfare state (assuming that's one of the type of things they use the tax money for).

Yes. And welfare states are closely connected to Socialism, contrarily to Neo-Liberalism.

And I don't understand your bit about elderly workers; here in the US the older people in a profession generally earn more because they have experience.

CR

I wasn't talking about how much money older people get. I'm talking about how are they going to reenter the labour market when all the market wants is younger people.

I'll give you the example of my very own father. You see, due to difficulties since our entry into the Euro (Portugal was given by the European Commission as an example as to «what not do» when entering our currency), my father's usual business began to plummet. (He was a "Sort-of Freelance" salesman of furniture, working for various companies) Since then, he withdrawed form the business, since it was giving him more expenditures than profits. As such, at the age of 61 (He's now 65) he had ,for the first time since he returned from Angola in the advent of the Portuguese de-colonization (In 1975-76), to look for a new job. As such, reading employment articles (Or whatever they're called) for any company needing a salesman, 95% of them say they want a salesman with a maximum of 40 years of age. As such, any salesman who goes unemployed being 50 years old, has to struggle very hard to get a job where he can use his skills properly. My father went from 61 years old until only a few months ago without any satisfying employment offer (4 years without any money while having chronic illnesses and having to support a sizeable familly!!).

That is what I meant about the difficulties of elder workers in finding unemployment, because companies generally want younger men. In a Liberal State, no company would recieve incentives to employ elderly workers. These would be left to their own luck. In a Socialist State, however things are different. But then again, I already explained it in my last post.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's pretty laughable that you view Socialism as a "State that controls companies." As I explained in my previous post, that isn't true. Very far from it, actually. Your view of Socialism, as I already said, is actually Communism. Does the Swedish government control IKEA?

I typed 'socialism' into Google and Wikipedia agrees with me, as does the first few dictionary sites I found, including the Encyclopedia Britannica , and the first socialism website that showed up, and the first economics website that showed up, and the world socialism movement seems to agree more with me as well.

That is what I meant about the difficulties of elder workers in finding unemployment, because companies generally want younger men. In a Liberal State, no company would recieve incentives to employ elderly workers. These would be left to their own luck. In a Socialist State, however things are different. But then again, I already explained it in my last post.

I see. Here in the US, we have laws against age discrimination. I'm not sure how effective they are.

Of course. Let's say you have two parties. Party one is in control of government, and has an important corporation about to fail. Party two is in opposition, and has a plan to save the day. Who's going to win the election?

So to save it, they'd basically give the company money in addition to running it differently?

My point is, when companies don't have to deal with the economic realities of a free market, their decisions don't make the most economical use of resources.

CR