Maduro to Venezuelans: "God will provide"

[kintana]

While we mentioned Cuba, Fidel Castro actually wanted a close relationship with US right after he took power. He even flew to US seeking to meet with Eisenhower. However, Eisenhower decided a game of golf was more important than meeting him, and started hosting right wing Cuban exiles in meetings. That forced Castro to fall back to Soviet Union for support, becoming one of the major blunders of US diplomatic history.

Castro did want a closer relationships. But he always wanted to be a major worldwide player. Remember Castro's government tried to destabilise several governments just like the US did. The Congo and Venezuela for example. Where Castro tried to bring about a revolution of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Even Che in Boliva.

It is a shame that the US embargo existed and ruined the relationship with Cuba.

Personally I never saw Cuba and the US being very close under Castro. Especially when Che was alive. Che didn't even like the relationship with the soviet union.

I think Castro played Chavez beautifully. He appealled to Chavez's emotional side. My dad worked under chavez for a period of time. He said Chavez saw himself as a liberator. And Castro made him think he was. And Chavez felt he had a mentor in Castro a fellow liberator. And Castro convinced Chavez to give Cuba a lot of help and rights that some Venezuelan citizens don't have. For example the Cuban currency is accepted in Venezuela but in Cuba the Venezuelan currency is not accepted by Cuba.

Venezuela even changed it's military structure to mirror cuba. Cuba really took advantage of Chavez and Venezuela. Granted Venezuela got some good things but no where near a fair deal.

Again Maduro was elected because out of chavez's inner circle he was the most loyal to cuba.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Hey I understand you don't care about impoverished, starving people, but there's American corporate profits at stake here too!

I

 

[KrazyKanadian]

This wouldn't have happened if they all prayed harder

 

[$uperman]

The whole Presidential press conference was a waste of time talking a bunch of nonsense, giving a 15% increase of minimun wage that with the high inflation eating the country means shit, all while deflecting and pointing fingers to others on the real issues the country is having.

This is your regular day in the market and in some instance mall nowadays

People getting mark like cattle in the proccess too.

" Capitalism is waiting in line for an iPhone. Communism is waiting in line for a loaf of bread. " - @greggutfeld - GS Elevator Gossip

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It's very strange too see that there are still people who support it.

Capitalism >>>>>>>>>>> Communism/Socialism.

 

[$uperman]

" The fundamental objection advanced against the practicability of socialism refers to the impossibility of economic calculation. It has been demonstrated in an irrefutable way that a socialist commonwealth would not be in a position to apply economic calculation. Where there are no market prices for the factors of production because they are neither bought nor sold, it is impossible to resort to calculation in planning future action and in determining the result of past action. A socialist management of production would simply not know whether or not what it plans and executes is the most appropriate means to attain the ends sought. It will operate in the dark, as it were. It will squander the scarce factors of production both material and human (labour). Chaos and poverty for all will unavoidably result. " - Ludwig von Mises (1922)

 

[Halge]

Communism/Socialism doesn't work.

The sanctions probably don't help either.

 

[$uperman]

The sanctions probably don't help either.

I agree.

But if they had a diversified " free " market like America. The oil would be a small % of the economy.

So then the sanctions would do far less damage.

 

[SolidIce]

Don't feel sorry, people voted for Chaves fuck them

Majority of them presently hate the government. Elections there presently are corrupt and opposition is getting jailed or beat if they organize.

 

[DespicablePeep]

Majority of them presently hate the government. Elections there presently are corrupt and opposition is getting jailed or beat if they organize.

At one time he had good approval fueled by nationalistic and anti-us propaganda. Those people who thought it was ok for the state to got to war with private companies fuck them, feel sorry for the people caught in the middle.

What happened in Venezuela is very common in South America, mostly due to Cuba and Communism influence, blame on capitalism while running a corrupt government that fills the pocket of every collaborator.

 

[SolidIce]

Maduro's current approval rating is at 22%.

NYTimes: Mr. Maduro in His Labyrinth
http://nyti.ms/15JXful

Framed portraits of the Venezuelan leader Hugo Ch

 

[MikeHammer**]

" Capitalism is waiting in line for an iPhone. Communism is waiting in line for a loaf of bread. " - @greggutfeld - GS Elevator Gossip

Communism/Socialism doesn't work. It's very strange too see that there are still people who support it.

Capitalism >>>>>>>>>>> Communism/Socialism.

no one really supports communism/socialism. what they support is a system that will forcibly take money from the 'top producers' and redistribute amongst the much bigger population of 'non producers/takers'.

It is a system ultimately that will fail as Greece and Venezuela show you. There is a tipping point that causes massive losses of production, that is good for society over all, if you take too much capital from the 'producers' in your society and forcibly redistribute it to those who do not produce.

 

[$uperman]

no one really supports communism/socialism. what they support is a system that will forcibly take money from the 'top producers' and redistribute amongst the much bigger population of 'non producers/takers'.

It is a system ultimately that will fail as Greece and Venezuela show you. There is a tipping point that causes massive losses of production, that is good for society over all, if you take too much capital from the 'producers' in your society and forcibly redistribute it to those who do not produce.

So left wing people just want to take money from successful people/companies and give to the unsuccessful people/companies and the government.

The problem then is that the whole country becomes or stays unsuccessful.

Because then alot of scarse resources is in the hand of unsuccessful people/companies and the government. Who will misallocate those scarce resources.

 

[Ruprecht]

I

 

[Rod1]

no one really supports communism/socialism. what they support is a system that will forcibly take money from the 'top producers' and redistribute amongst the much bigger population of 'non producers/takers'.

It is a system ultimately that will fail as Greece and Venezuela show you. There is a tipping point that causes massive losses of production, that is good for society over all, if you take too much capital from the 'producers' in your society and forcibly redistribute it to those who do not produce.

No, its not about capital, its about the means of production. Communists take the entire industries, socialists just tax them.

Also Greece went under because it didnt taxed its business proportionally to its spending.

 

[Rod1]

So left wing people just want to take money from successful people/companies and give to the unsuccessful people/companies and the government.

The problem then is that the whole country becomes or stays unsuccessful.

Because then alot of scarse resources is in the hand of unsuccessful people/companies and the government. Who will misallocate those scarce resources.

1.- Spending is what drives capitalism, and its been shown that the lousier spenders are the rich people. Thats what the whole great depression was about, rich people not wanting to spend.

2.- Venezuela is not a country where redistribution happened, its still a highly unequal country.

 

[$uperman]

1.- Spending is what drives capitalism, and its been shown that the lousier spenders are the rich people. Thats what the whole great depression was about, rich people not wanting to spend.

2.- Venezuela is not a country where redistribution happened, its still a highly unequal country.

1: Capitalism started after the middle ages in North West Europe and later in the rest of the west. Because of increased trade, more investment and the industrial revolution. Industry needs investments. So you need people who are saving money and are investing it in companies. Those companies uses machines. So they can make better, cheaper and new products. Those employees are far more productive with machines than with only there bodies and tools. Because they are more productive the earn more money and can buy more, better and new products. With machines scarce resources are used more effectively. So you will get richer societies with better, more and new products. Look at the west before and after the industrial revolution. It's a difference of day and night.

Rich people save and invest more of their money, because good investments create more wealth for them and society. They get more money and societies gets more, better and newer products. If the rest of the society would save more money and make good investments. Then society would become richer. Instead the rest of the people doesn't save money or they even get in debt. So the scarce money of society is then not used for good companies to invest in machines, but wasted by people on consumer goods. Also the great depression started after the popping of the stock market bubble in the end of the 1920's. The problem of the 1920's was they spend to much and were buying too much stock. It was called the Roaring Twenties.

2. Economy is not about equality. It's about effective use of scarce resources.

 

[Gunny]

Lol. Link for full.

Quote is up there with "Let them eat cake"

This isn't your fathers Marxism...

 

[Rod1]

1: Capitalism started after the middle ages in North West Europe and later in the rest of the west. Because of increased trade, more investment and the industrial revolution. Industry needs investments. So you need people who are saving money and are investing it in companies. Those companies uses machines. So they can make better, cheaper and new products. Those employees are far more productive with machines than with only there bodies and tools. Because they are more productive the earn more money and can buy more, better and new products. With machines scarce resources are used more effectively. So you will get richer societies with better, more and new products. Look at the west before and after the industrial revolution. It's a difference of day and night.

Except that all first world economies are service based not industrial.

Yes, when a country is on the industrial phase, its better to have some degree of income inequality.

Rich people save and invest more of their money, because good investments create more wealth for them and society. They get more money and societies gets more, better and newer products. If the rest of the society would save more money and make good investments. Then society would become richer. Instead the rest of the people doesn't save money or they even get in debt. So the scarce money of society is then not used for good companies to invest in machines, but wasted by people on consumer goods. Also the great depression started after the popping of the stock market bubble in the end of the 1920's. The problem of the 1920's was they spend to much and were buying too much stock. It was called the Roaring Twenties.

Buying stock is investing.

The crisis of the 30s happened because of overinvestment, which happens when the market shrinks because of low spending. If what you said was true then deflation would be a pretty nice thing, yet, its not.

2. Economy is not about equality. It's about effective use of scarce resources.

We are talking about capitalism here, not economics in general, and capitalism needs spending and growth. Too efficient and the system crashes down like its happening in Europe with deflation.

 

[Zankou]

I was mostly joking, but...

Hating a country is an abstract thing. US and Venezuela's primary economic interaction revolved around oil, and that wasn't effected. It's unlikely a more US friendly government would have changed the shale oil situation.
Of course the Anti-US stance was a political distraction from the underlying economic issues, being social programs they couldn't afford (including foreign aid), currency controls, price controls and most of all, dependence on oil.
Those are the reasons for the problems though, dependence on oil and inept economic intervention, not the political relationship with the US, anti-US sentiment or laziness.
In fact if they had actually just "re-nationalised" the oil and handed the profits over in cash to the poor, they'd be in much less trouble.
It was collapsing oil prices that originally got Chavez into power, and it's collapsing oil prices that will finish off his "revolution".

The revolution was finished long before the global oil price collapse.

That's just the decapitation stroke.

 

[BJJ_Rage]

argentina is on its way too (not as bad, but pretty damn bad)

But these goverments willl keep on winning elections, as long as they have enough money to buy choris and wine for the people.