Re-nationalization, high tariffs, Keynesian monetary and fiscal “policy”, and all the U.N.’s CEPAL recipe for disaster is back in Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Ecuador. Having to say a lot on the subject, let me just begin with Hugo Chavez’s proposal for an expiring, voucher-based currency.
Besides being anything but original, it would take Venezuelans back to barter and small town self-dependency or just disconnected among themselves and ever more dependent on Caracas and its oil cashflow.
The proposal is very explicit: the inhabitants of those towns won’t be allowed to trade those bartering certificates for money. “And what do you call that?” he asks the audience, “Socialism, we are not here to make profits.” Of course, long term planning will become impossible and the division of labor will suffer even more in a country were shops already are as empty as in Cuba, and political centralization will grow stronger. One can only wonder if there is true ignorance in the proposal or just plain malice from an egomaniacal tyrant who wants all important transations to go checked by his minions.
{ 18 comments }
From the New York Times story “Chavez Vision Shares Wealth and Centers Power”:
“But walking into a grocery store here offers a different view of the changes washing over Venezuela. Combined with price controls that keep farmers from profitably producing some basic foods, climbing incomes of the poorest Venezuelans have stripped supermarket aisles bare of items like milk and eggs. Meanwhile, foreign exchange controls create bottlenecks for importers seeking to meet rising demand for many products.
Such imbalances plague oil economies elsewhere, with oil revenues often making it cheaper to import goods than produce them at home. But the system Mr. Chávez is creating is perhaps unique: a hybrid of state-supported enterprises and no-holds-barred capitalism in which 500,000 automobiles are expected to be sold this year.”
Does anyone know what they mean by this? How can “no-holds-barred capitalism” even exist there?
But it’s for the ‘people’…
This is nothing new. He said that last year and with the ‘revolutionary’ Constitution they will fraudulently approve in December and the over 100 new ‘surprise’ laws that will come to light in 2008, Venezuela will definitely have gone over the abyss…
“…no-holds-barred capitalism in which 500,000 automobiles are expected to be sold this year.”
It just shows that editors and writers at the NYT don’t have a clue ast to what capitalism is.
Their idea of it is probably: ‘the rich get richer and the poor get poorer’. Closet Marxists, too ignorant to even know Marxian theory.
Have the above commenters forgotten there is such as state-capitalism? Perhaps what you may be thinking of is free enterprise?
Just say what you mean when you use terms with multiple connotations and/or dictions. (Such as liberalism) Maybe I should take my own advice?
Randian anti-concepts. The words have been distorted to the extent that they can no longer be used to convey any real information, sadly.
Christopher: “Have the above commenters forgotten there is such as state-capitalism?”
There ain’t no such animal as state-capitalism. Capitalism = private property + free markets. If the state is doing something, then the property is neither private no free.
The term “state capitalism” came about, I believe, because ignorant people didn’t know what to call a system in which the state controlled the economy but it wasn’t technically socialist. During WWII, such a system became known as fascism. But ignorant journalists classify anything as capitalist if some type of commerce takes place. They’ve also invented the term “crony capitalism” for the corrupt economies of the world. However, what they describe as “state capitalism” and “crony capitalism” are nothing more than the traditional economic systems of the world before capitalism in which the state controlled prices, regulated labor, issued monopolies and tried to enforce the church’s rules on commerce and interest.
Fundamentalist:
Fascism applies only to the Italian Populist Movement; as was made clear by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.
I always thought ‘state capitalism’ was the socialist attempt to deny any affiliation to the USSR and other butcheries that bore the communist name.
The term “capitalism” was coined by Karl Marx. He was talking about what we would call mercantilism/corporatism.
“One can only wonder if there is true ignorance in the proposal or just plain malice from an egomaniacal tyrant who wants all important transations to go checked by his minions.”
It is ignorance and a layer of self deception that is obviously incredibly thick.
Hayek is the key. We are maladapted to the modern market process coordinated world and therefore easily susceptible to socialism.
We are fighting a battle against ignorance. Not “evil” . Libertarians need to wake up to this and stop insulting the politicians and labeling them as “evil”/etc.. it is only making us look like fools and polarizing the situation.
Jorge:
Face it socialism is evil. Lots of socialism means lots of evil. The Venezuelans have in the past supported Communists like Chavez and will do so in the future. The Venezuelans themselves are not evil but what they seem to expect their government to do in their name is. No government can provide for the basic needs of its citizens. That is the job of the citizens themselves. The faster they realize this the better they will be off.
Take it from a US Citizen who is seeing his country go down a very similar path to a Military-Police State. It isn’t pretty and it is in some ways just as evil.
I would not worry though, the US is in a recession and the dollar is crashing. It is a matter of time before the Federal Reserve jacks up interest rates thus slowing down the economy and the demand for oil. Once this happens, Chavez will have a lot less money to peform his evil socialist schemes and then we will see if the citizens buy his ideas then.
By no means are ideologies dead vehicles; there still are clashes of ideologies. In these clashes it’s hard to still clearly see and think.
So ask you’re self questions to check whether our sight is still clear and focused on the real issues. Ask yourself this question: if all actions are reaction, and the US is the biggest economic player in the world, what does that mean for the current situation in Venezuela. Would it be bold to say, that because of the policies and the way the US does business in the world, reactions like one sees now in Venezuela, are a direct result of its actions?
[...you notice the splinter in the others eye and not the trunk in you're own?]
Though the problems in Venezuela are reel, and one may fear for the future of this country and its people, one has to come to realise that we all play a very reel role in this world and that our actions may have more direct consequences than we would wish for. As long as the western countries can not live up the standards we ourselves proclaim, and therefore are not able to give the visible profitable example in the world, [profitable in its broadest sense, meaning; peace, prosperity, freedom and durability for the biggest group in society, if not for all] reactions like in Venezuela are inevitable. Though we still can condemn these reactions, and study them, and give arguments against them, we can only change ourselves, and not others… and it would only fit justice and morality that the western countries actively seek the answers and implement them themselves. If the result is beyond doubt desirable, expect others to follow. That would be the economy of ideologies…
Martin Kuitert NL
14-01-08
Devin,
Marx might have popularized the word, but it was first coined by William Thackeray to mean “owners of capital”.
cqadk qsdpgr fghn cuirlx
dfsipa vyxw sujdakc ifejy
dfsipa vyxw sujdakc ifejy
Comments on this entry are closed.