I'm not defending them I'm simply pointing out that it is their problem to deal with. I don't care about their Socialism, You Americans seem to have that word up your asses. If they want socialism or not it's their problem, how the hell does it affect you or your country? You want to "help" them because of their oil.
The point of my reply is just what I said. You're not talking about socialism, at least not in that OP, you're talking about corruption. Let me put it another way, since somehow what seems obvious to me is apparently being lost on you. HOW did socialism ruin Venezuela?. Not who is profiting by the loss, or how is that ruin manifesting itself. How. Did. It. Happen Unless, of course, you're just bleating like the proper little Trumpist you seem, making the proper noise to excuse the fact that it's your fascist attacks on a guy who exposed your world oil barons for the heartless and bloodsucking parasites they are that is the reason South America's success story is now their worst basket case.
Socialism failed Venezuela because of the nationalization of agribusiness and industry led to the lack of any consistent production of consumer goods in that country. Ya know, public ownership of the means of production? Or are we changing the definition of socialism once more.
There's a socialist movement that every so often tries to take over our country and pointing out the failure of socialism in countries where it's been allowed to gain dominance helps send socialist crawling back under their rock.
Easy answer. Nationalization of private enterprise, so called land reform, seizure of wealth and last but not least corruption which brings us back to the rich kids of Venezuela.
So it had nothing to do with the collapse of world oil prices which were largely the basis of Venezuela's prosperity? And the making of non-consumer goods is one of the ways developing countries are supposed to get onto world markets, isn't it? What does that have to do with socialism anyway? I'll be content with the definition of socialism you quoted, but then changed to be, "the ultimate cause of anything I dislike"
These "movements" coincide very neatly with the partial/complete collapse of our economy due to conservatives robbing us fracking blind. Surprise, surprise.
Once again, Joseph, a paranoid dictatorship is not the same as socialism. Socialism, since it really didn't exist there, did not ruin the country. The use of socialist concepts in really stupid ways by really ignorant people who were allowed to use really corrupt methods was the problem. Blame Chavez and his cronies and you're not going to get much of an argument. But if you're trying to scare folks on the Left by echoing the propaganda of the Right, well, good luck with that.
How is the lack of consistent production in agribusiness socialism? Were you referring to the fact that Chavez and his cronies failed to reinvest to improve agribusiness? That's not socialism, that's ignorance.
You're suggesting that taking money that would have gone to the owners of businesses for profit and reinvestment is socialism and what ruined the economy. Partly right--sharing those profits among the people is part of socialism. But not reinvesting in the business has nothing to do with socialism. Whether the profits go to to the people or one person is irrelevant in this case. The fact that almost nothing was put back into the means of production as far as maintenance, technology, and education is what brought those businesses down. That is not socialism.
Look, I'm from a socialist country/ former socialist country. I'm not for it nor do I in any way promote it. But what you call socialism is far from what socialist countries are. The problems you have are idiots thinking it's some kind of utopia where everyone is happy, it is that way in theory but like with any system it has it's negatives. But at the end of the day I would rather live in a socialist system runed by a dictator(Which I in fact have done) than be a puppet of America or any other country. What your country wants is not to help Venezuelans in any way, it wants their ******* to be in charge, they could care less about Venezuela being socialist or not. I kinda laugh when I see the *******s you have in your country that promotes socialism because they don't have a clue what it is, nor do they who oppose it so much. It's like watching a cirkus with monkeys pretending to do something.
What about all the other oil exporters who didn't experience 5-7 digit inflation, a loss of electricity, and a lack of toilet paper. The biggest difference I can see is the entire economy wasn't nationalized.
No, my analysis has a broader base than yours. It is a fact that the US has been destabilizing the country for years. We made an effort to overthrow Chavez but failed. The beat goes on. I blame the US because that is what has happened there, and all over the South American continent. I'm committing truth. You're swallowing propaganda no questions asked.
I'm suggesting nationalizing businesses and in this case especially oil businesses ruined them. They became mismanaged and crumbled in short order due that and looting of what small profits were still made
Our last economic collapse was caused by socialist policy of demanding banks make subprime loans to make things "even".
What capitalism wants is a free and prosperous world to do business with. It's socialist that seek to control not us.
It wasn't nationalizing that ruined them, it was mismanagement. You seem to be assuming that mismanagement comes from socialism. If that's true, then when a business is mismanaged by a private owner, is that socialism?
They were well managed before they were nationalized and yes socialist always mismanage companies they nationalized. They have no business experience and always run companies into the ground.
That makes no sense. If you put an experienced person in charge of an industry in a Socialist economy, that person should be able to manage the company equally as well as if it were in any other economy. Socialism doesn't dictate that companies not be maintained or modernized. The only real difference would be whether the profits go to a small group of people or be shared with the general population.
No, it was caused by rich bitch jerkwads trying to use their mortgage loans as unsecured get-rich-quick investments. Quick, what does the bank lose more money on, 7 bad loans of $100,000 or less, or one giant refi of a million where one ******* cheat walks because he's "upside down" and just can't understand that real estate prices actually go down as well as up? It you're Republican it's the 7 because it was your buttbuddy who repealed the Glass Steagall Act which had kept that kind of thing from happening
Exactly, socialism and capitalism make no difference if the system itself is not being shot through with corruption.