Live data from Hacker News

My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

bloomberg.com

191–200 of 276 posts

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#191
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Several countries that are fairly socialist have higher living standards than the U.S., where "socialism" is an epithet for some reason. McCarthy lives on I suppose. Venezuela's problem is totalitarianism . In a socialist country, it is possible for the government to be governed by law and have limits placed on its power. That is not what's been going in in Venezuala.

> countries that are fairly socialist Please describe the ways in which some countries are "fairly" socialist but aren't actually socialist. I'm not aware of a single example of a socialist nation succeeding in any regard towards creating prosperity for its people. Nor am I aware of a successful national experiment in socialism in the last two centuries of various attempts. Every historical attempt has ended extraord…

The Nordic countries implement "social democracy" in some form or other. At least they used to, as you mention Sweden has seen its economy liberalized far beyond the US in some sectors these days (Schools, for example).

In the end it's just a question of whether Social Democracy with a free market is half socialism or if it isn't. Not really a useful debate. The roots of social democracy just like all other forms of socialism of course is the workers movement and Marx is very present still in the Social democratic parties' program declarations.

Social democrats accept the market economy. They are socialist in the sense that they are proponents of redistribution/wealth equality, and workers influencing or even owning the means of production (The former through unions having seats in corporate boards, the latter through later scrapped ideas like workers owning corporations through funds, "wage earner funds").

These social democratic ideas try to adapt Marxist theory to a liberal democracy and market economy. Is social democracy socialism despite accepting a market economy? Depends on who you ask. It's simpler to just use the term social democratic instead of socialist. Having a large welfare state is really orthogonal to how the money for said welfare state is raised (Norway for example could in theory have supported its welfare state without much social democracy or socialism).

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#193
Venezuelan here. Feel Free to ask me anything.

I am in a privileged position, though, I understand the situation of 'common people' as I work closely with them as a local business owner.

This journal is really close to the reality.

To those wondering about 'side markets' and 'farmers marking a killing', let me explain.

There is a black market for food and any other good. Shortages are real, especially when it comes to medicines. It's easy to find pasta or rice comparatively. People with chronic diseases are dying - the patients that have the medicines they need require foreign help either from family or friends.

About 5 years ago the minimum wage was about $300. Today it's $40. You can find in any major city people looking for food in the dumpsters. [1]

Why are farmers and producers not making a killing? It's not that simple, but there's definitely people making a killing: black market traffickers which are mostly politicians and military men in strategic positions.

I know a few farmers, so I will speak from experience. This farmer friend I have - let's call him Jose, produces milk and his family has been doing so for more than 40 years.

Jose is the vet in the farm. Venezuela was suffering a long drought due "El Nino" that also affected the electric service. Cows were producing less milk due this - medicines for cows are really hard to get (probiotics, antibiotics, etc), food for animals is mostly imported - just like medicines. The biggest problem, though, is what's brought us here: The government economic policies.

The market for foreign currencies is regulated. Only the government and through the government currencies can be exchanged. Since the government depends heavily on oil for foreign currency we've seen quite a dip in imports. In other words, the government lacks liquidity. Which is why it's really hard to legally obtain imported goods, so if you produce in Venezuela and sell your product in Bolivares (local currency) you would have to get Dollars (foreign currency) to import anything - the government is basically saying no to 95% of requests for currency exchange.

The market for [most] producers is highly regulated. No milk producer can produce milk higher than the fixed price given by the government. For most, there's no incentive.

The government is printing money like crazy making inflation soar (we have the highest inflation in the world! [2])

As you can see, most producers have no incentive as they will not see profit in their ventures since they have a cap for what they can sell the product for.

Imagine that the U.S government says by law "1 pound of rice will cost $1 or less" and anyone selling for more is breaking the law. If the cost of producing rice is $0.1c this would be fine, however, for the rice producer each pound of rice costs $1.5 - how many people do you think are going to produce rice? This happens in Venezuela in almost all product categories (milk, coffee, beans, rice, pasta, flour, and I could keep going, the list is really long).

What has the government done to fix the issue? Basically, nothing since their policy "fixes" is to control more and more our economy.

The government solution to the food shortages and I must say, this is really hard to explain, is to give out bags of food with goods distributed by the "own people in the community". I don't see how will this ever work, since while it's not free they're giving out a bag for $1 that in the black market can easily go for $10, a golden goose for the corrupt. The government is completely ignoring, what in my opinion is far worse, which is, the lack of medicines of any kind for the most part.

The government controls the media, the military, and all forces but one - the legislative power, though through political tricks they've found ways to mostly neutralize it. This year - 2016 - we could potentially have a referendum, though the government is making everything it can to avoid it and I must, sadly say, I believe they're succeeding.

[1] http://www.el-nacional.com/sucesos/Venezolanos-desesperados-...

[2] http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/12/news/economy/venezuela-imf-e...

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#194
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Colombian here. You can't even compare the situation to what's happening in Venezuela. There's a lot of corruption in south america but Venezuela is total disaster right now because of the totalitarian goverment.

> You can't even compare the situation to what's happening in Venezuela. Well having the US send $1 billion a year, year after year to prop your country up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia ) helps.

Sending $1 billion a year since the start of Plan Colombia (1996) implies Colombia would have received over $20 billion by now. In reality the amount of American aid to Colombia is about half of that.

And American aid does not come in cash, the money can only be spent in shiny new American-made military hardware. That's why the Colombian army has lots of Humvees and Black Hawks, paid for the U.S. taxpayer.

It really is a poorly disguised subsidy to the American military industrial complex.

In any case, considering Colombia has the second largest GDP in South America (after Brazil) at about $300 billion a year, receiving even $1 billion a year would be statistically speaking, noise.

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#195

I'm reading a lot of comments exclusively blaming communism, but when I lived in Caracas during the first years of the Chavez presidency, I witnessed an overwhelming public support in his favor. Elections were won with ~70% of the votes, and I also recall various referendum-like votes which Chavez won easily as well. Another fact that surprised me was that every Sunday he would give these 4h long speeches, and a crow…

Chavez was immensely popular. A coup by the army was overturned by mass protests. His government was very successful by most economic metrics during his time in his office. It is his successor that has dropped the ball with his bungling of the currency mess. And that's the root cause of all this suffering, a bad currency system, and low oil prices. You call them populist programs with little ROI, but they were invest…

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I am not against populist programs to aid humans in deplorable life conditions. But these have to be sustainable, and in 3rd world South American countries, this probably and unfortunately involves not being able to help everyone on the short term. Otherwise, you end up inflating government spending leaving little space for maneuvering when facing an economical crisis.

My point originally was intended at NOT blaming communism, or capitalism as well. IMHO this seems more like a problem involving a government spending all of it's USD100-a-barrel income like a lottery winner, and when the prices fall to less than half of that (which by the way, most countries would welcome happily the amount of petro Venezuela has even at USD40 a barrel) and no other significant investments were made in alternative sources of revenue, they act as if it was solely a natural disaster and absolve themselves of all responsibility.

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternate definition? A market is a place where you exchange currency for commodities. That is a definition of what a market is, not an "alternative definition". There is no being coy at all, I can't even twist my head around how these similar places in the US and Russia are not the same. What is his "alternate definition" where such a place in Russia is stripped of the word market?

As I said, that is indeed one definition of a market. But the parent commenter is referring to markets in the free market sense, in which the markets perform price discovery.

You refer to a market in the US that sells radishes for dollars as "free", which presumably means the identical market selling radishes for rubles in the USSR is unfree, and I am the one playing around? I have trouble fathoming definitions so steeped in ideology, it reminds me of the US Congress cafeteria renaming French fries as Freedom fries when France chose not to join the US on some imperial venture.

That's a minor point as you answered the question, sort of. But not to satisfaction. A market in the US or USSR sells commodities at a set price. People buy goods or they don't. The markets operate exactly the same.

As you're attempting to make a rational argument unlike others, I will get to the point. The markets in the US and USSR were the same, despite you following some US ideological line and calling the US one a "free" one. It is production that was different, and control of production. Misdirecting the difference from control of production to "free" markets is just more misdirection and sophistry (which is widespread, not particularly pertaining to you).

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, not totalitarian policies, just stupid policies. Genghis Khan could become dictator and if he fixed those policies, the economy would improve.

I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way. He was solely responsible for one of the largest economic revolutions in history by uniting the Silk Road, standardizing a writing system, and ran a meritocratic society. So yeah of course he could fix it, he's one of the most successful rulers of all time by all metrics. Edit: Yeah, obviously he and his conquest killed a lot of people. And ye…

I always find it strange that Genghis Khan is used as an example this way.

Mainly because he is seen as a barbarian conqueror, so people understand me if I use that phrase.

(whether he was or not is immaterial: though by modern standards, he was a barbarian conqueror and completely unethical)

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "capitalism" and "free trade" are similarly without clear definitions, given the amount of time people spend arguing about them. This seems to be a consistent truth. Perhaps we should develop tools to be able to converse with people who don't use the same definitions that we do?

I agree with you on capitalism, so it is another word I tend to avoid. I try to say things in a way that I will be understood. I don't know about "free trade," though, what sorts of alternate definitions are people using for that?

People seem to have disagreements over how much regulation and what kind of regulation you would have before trade is no longer considered free trade.

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The socialist downfall of countries are all unique, but follow similar paths The PRC just surpassed US GDP on some measures, whereas in the 1940s it was a western and Japanese occupied backwards basket case. Is that the downfall you mean? Or do you mean Russia, which couldn't win a war with the Japanese in 1905, never mind Germany a decade later? The New York Times columns of 1918 said Mr. Lenin's government would…

> in the 1930s, Russia was surging ahead and industrializing It (The USSR) was also busy having famines that claimed millions of lives. Because it was too busy selling gold and wheat to buy industry from Americans (that's who built all those plants). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor I think I'd skip an industrialization like that.

> I'd skip an industrialization like that

That's how the British empire industrialized (in India, Ireland) etc.

The western countries bordering Ukraine had food shortages the same year the Ukraine did, no mention of that.

Also if you read New York Times during this period, the reporters travelling the Ukraine said there were no famine conditions - the Times said this, not Pravda.

Re: My Venezuela Nightmare: A 30-Day Hunt for Food in a Starving Land

#200
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wish we could call that "empathetic capitalism". OK, but the universally accepted term is democratic socialism, which is quite accurate. "Capitalism" implies a lot more than just free markets.

Wrong- the generally accepted term is "welfare state".

No. Welfare state is the apparatus prividing social security and benefits for a population. It's not an ideology or a political system. Sweden has a large welfare state in the sense that we have free single payer health care, free education etc.

We are a social democracy in the sense that the current political climate and consensus is shaped by a few decades of social democratic rule. High progressive taxes etc are seen as norm and are of course necessary to finance a large welfare state.

However: How the money for a large welfare state like the Nordic ones is raised is orthogonal to whether it's being spent on a large welfare state or not. Had we had 10% military spending we'd have a much smaller welfare state than today, with the same taxes.

It's entirely possible for a country to have a very large welfare state without being the least bit socialist - especially if they have natural resources. If the swedish national mining Company (yes, a state owned Company!) suddenly found resources allowing taxes to be halved - we would.

Post reply on HN