You Know You're Living In A 3Rd World Country When...

[JoeGillis]

..When the socialist president only goes to fancy, private clinics for health care.

http://www.bbc.com/n...ending-29903142

And, of course, one wonders if La Reina Abejs is actually paying for her stay at this deluxe facility.

 

[Pensador]

Venezuela was governed by the rich, all along the XXth century. The result: one of the richest countries with oil with 70% of poverty.

Lets take a closer look shall we...

From wikipedia

-------------------------------------------------
1960s - 1990s

Buoyed by a strong oil sector in the 1960s and 1970s,Venezuela's governments were able to maintain social harmony by spending fairly large amounts on public programs including health care, education, transport, and food subsidies. "Great strides were made in literacy and welfare programs." [sup][27][/sup] Because of the oil wealth, Venezuelan workers "enjoyed the highest wages in Latin America."[sup][28][/sup] This situation was reversed when oil prices collapsed during the 1980s. The economy contracted, and the number of people living in poverty rose from 36% in 1984 to 66% in 1995.[sup][29][/sup] The country suffered a severe banking crisis (Venezuelan banking crisis of 1994). As the economy contracted in the 1980s, inflation levels (consumer price inflation) fell, remaining between 6 and 12% from 1982 to 1986.[sup][30][/sup] In the late 80s and early 90s inflation rose to around 30 - 40% annually, with a 1989 peak of 84%.[sup][30][/sup] The mid-1990s saw annual rates of 50-60% (1993 to 1997) with an exceptional peak in 1996 at 99.88%.[sup][30][/sup] Subsequently inflation has remained in a range of around 15% to 30%.[sup][30][/sup] By 1998, the economic crisis had grown even worse. Per capita GDP was at the same level as 1963 (after adjusting 1963 dollar to 1998 value), down a third from its 1978 peak; and the purchasing power of the average salary was a third of its 1978 level.[sup][31][/sup]

2013 - present

According to the 2013 Global Misery Index Scores, Venezuela was ranked as the top spot globally with the highest misery index score,[sup][43][/sup] while the Heritage Foundation ranked Venezuela 175th out of 178 countries in economic freedom, classifying it as a "Repressed" economy.[sup][44][/sup] In early 2013, Venezuela devalued its currency due to growing shortages in the country.[sup][45][/sup] The shortages included necessities such as toilet paper, milk, and flour.[sup][46][/sup] Fears rose so high due to the toilet paper shortage that the government occupied a toilet paper factory.[sup][47][/sup] In late 2013, Venezuela's inflation rates increased even higher, to 54.3%,[sup][48][/sup] and forecasts from the International Monetary Fund show Venezuela as one of the slowest-growing economies in Latin America for 2013.[sup][49][/sup] Black market estimates that most Venezuelans have to use for purchases have risen to almost ten times the official exchange rate.[sup][50][/sup]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting to say the least. It does appear the legitimate understanding shows that the problem was obviously not a direct product of the rich but some good old economic turmoil. Oil prices collapsing not greedy evil rich people oppressing the poor. Perhaps a lack of planning. But the 2013 to present and misery index I think speaks for itself.

 

[camberiu]

Wikipedia data can be changed at will (or so the detractors will claim). Let's look at the World Bank data instead.

According to The World Bank, back in 1979, Venezuela had a child mortality rate not only lower than Colombia's, but also lower than that of Argentina!!!!!!!
Not only that, but from 1960 until 1999, which was the period BEFORE Chavez, the child mortality rate had declined from 80 per 1000 to 23 per 1000.

You can also see from the graph that during the same period, Colombia was able to make incredible advances in terms of reducing child mortality rates without having to resort to currency controls, nationalizations, price controls, mass scarcity of goods and creating a highly polarized society.
http://goo.gl/yCO06g

 

[Matiasba]

Look, I dont remember the source, but believe me, I have studied, and the poverty was around 70% when Chavez got to power. It was an incredibly inequality society, insecurity and poverty was common all along the XXth century in Venezuela. Still is today, dont get me wrong, no doubt about this. Although I agree with the people that say and show statistics that poverty has improoved. I read like for 30%. I dont know the exact number, in these particular cases, as they are soooo polemic and the one that handle the information is the one that has the power (talking of both sides, as theres also the huge international power, including of course the US with its embassies in all the region, that wants Maduro out), there is a situation of believe who you want.

BUT

There are some consensus. For instance, I never (ever!!) read that poverty has increased these Chavez years. That the social situation has went backwards. And I ve read a lot, from Chavistas and anti Chavez (of course serious people, not panflets). Its the same as the elections last year, that noone believed Maduros win, since it was so tight, but for that there were international viewers, and noone from those talked of fraud.

So, if we talk of poverty and the social situation (not the economic one, investments, etc) you have one library that says the situation has improoved, but the other do not talk of a general deterioration. Yes, they talk of angry, they talk of not having liberties, they talk of inflation, they talk of some cases of poverty. But Venezuela is by far the country in the region that invests more of its GDP to social plans. BY FAR. In fact, lots of the social plans from the Ks were inspired in Venezuela (and so the two dollar markets I guess). It must have some results.

 

[Pensador]

So, if we talk of poverty and the social situation (not the economic one, investments, etc) you have one library that says the situation has improoved, but the other do not talk of a general deterioration. Yes, they talk of angry, they talk of not having liberties, they talk of inflation, they talk of some cases of poverty. But Venezuela is by far the country in the region that invests more of its GDP to social plans. BY FAR. In fact, lots of the social plans from the Ks were inspired in Venezuela (and so the two dollar markets I guess). It must have some results.

Yes it has resulted in one of highest misery index ratings in the world.

 

[ElQueso]

To me, there is a simple statement that Rothbard makes that illustrates how government can never "make things equal". You can argue about whether or not government is necessary, but you can't really argue the statement:

As soon as you take money from one group of people and give it to another, you are creating two separate classes.

You can also argue as to whether or not the two classes are one or both bad or good or indifferent, but the statement still holds truth.

These classes, by the way, are the taxpayer and the recipients of taxpayer money. Taxpayers are typically those who create wealth (either through investment or their own labor which is productive). Recipients are the opposite.

Recipients can also be taxpayers, but maybe that's even a third class. I'm not talking about people who receive services, but rather welfare and subsidies and such, because both the poor and the rich receive services, but the poor receive welfare and other subsidies.

A very large group of recipients are the government employees, as well as elected officials, themselves. Those who see it in their best interests to spend as much money as they can, for example. They don't actually produce anything, thereby neither contributing to the GDP or to the general wealth of a nation. The most they can do is nothing and the worst they can do is control the economy (usually to the detriment of large groups of people, maybe even the majority, like here in Argentina).

Don't ever look to government to make things "equal". Government should be there to ensure that everyone plays by the sames rules and when it begins to distribute income by taking money through force from one and giving that money to another, it is creating classes by its very existence.

Argentina has been looking for its long-lost parent ever since Peron died. The US has started looking for such a mythical figure and thought it found such in Obama. People need to stop depending on government so much to solve its problems for them and grow up.

 

[bobg]

To me, there is a simple statement that Rothbard makes that illustrates how government can never "make things equal". You can argue about whether or not government is necessary, but you can't really argue the statement:

As soon as you take money from one group of people and give it to another, you are creating two separate classes.

You can also argue as to whether or not the two classes are one or both bad or good or indifferent, but the statement still holds truth.

These classes, by the way, are the taxpayer and the recipients of taxpayer money. Taxpayers are typically those who create wealth (either through investment or their own labor which is productive). Recipients are the opposite.

Recipients can also be taxpayers, but maybe that's even a third class. I'm not talking about people who receive services, but rather welfare and subsidies and such, because both the poor and the rich receive services, but the poor receive welfare and other subsidies.

A very large group of recipients are the government employees, as well as elected officials, themselves. Those who see it in their best interests to spend as much money as they can, for example. They don't actually produce anything, thereby neither contributing to the GDP or to the general wealth of a nation. The most they can do is nothing and the worst they can do is control the economy (usually to the detriment of large groups of people, maybe even the majority, like here in Argentina).

Don't ever look to government to make things "equal". Government should be there to ensure that everyone plays by the sames rules and when it begins to distribute income by taking money through force from one and giving that money to another, it is creating classes by its very existence.

Argentina has been looking for its long-lost parent ever since Peron died. The US has started looking for such a mythical figure and thought it found such in Obama. People need to stop depending on government so much to solve its problems for them and grow up.

I don't want to support welfare, but if I did I think that my response would be something like this (and please don't misunderstand - I am just trying to determine how I feel about some liberal concepts and why) ... So what! Government is not trying to eliminate classes and make all things equal. But in some societies the people decide that they do not want to see people starving and living on the streets and so provide them with minimal housing and food stamps. What is the alternative? We don't want to kill them or put them behind walls so that we don't have to look at them. Do you think that there should be no forms of welfare for anybody, including, for example, people with Down's syndrome, or do you just think that far too many people qualify for welfare?

Bob

PS No one should "Like" this post because I am not taking a position. I am just trying to better understand El Queso's thoughts.

 

[camberiu]

Look, I dont remember the source, but believe me, I have studied, and the poverty was around 70% when Chavez got to power. It was an incredibly inequality society, insecurity and poverty was common all along the XXth century in Venezuela.

The above could be rephrased as follows:

"Look, I have no counter arguments to the World Bank's hard data you presented debunking my narrative about Venezuela, so I will ignore it. Instead you should trust me when I say that I have sources that I cannot name that shows that my narrative is correct. Never mind that in 1999 the child mortality rate in Venezuela was only 25% of what it had been back in 1960. Just ignore that and accept what I tell you. In Venezuela, the poor were getting poorer until Chavez arrived and saved the day."

 

[StevePalermo]

And we shouldn't forget those welfare bums the big corporations.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/

 

[Pensador]

Numbers and math always tell the truth, 2 - 4 never equals 6. But is seems allot of people would like believe it does.

http://mdgs.un.org/u...id=553&crid=862

How is that with so many international medical advances in recent history that in Venzuela with all it social spending the maternal death rate has gone up and not down in the last 15 years. From 93 in 2000 to 110 per 100,000 in 2013. In the US it was 18.5 per 100,000 in 2013.

But wait there is more....

http://en.wikipedia....ty_of_Venezuela

If so many were being lifted out of poverty and into a better life with the massive social spending and eradication of individual wealth for the good of the society, why does the math seem to indicate that the society is going to hell?