My point is that while good governance leads to slow, steady economic growth, bad governance leads to quick demise. Chavez, flush with oil cash, tried to be a good socialist and help everyone out. In the early days, he actually didn’t do that much worse than what came before him.

But he’s starting to get too sure of his own ability to control the economy. Thus, high inflation, price controls, nationalization of industry, etc. Then, he tightened his power by getting himself declared dictator for 18 months, and attempting to end term limits that would force him out of office.

What we’re seeing as he consolidates his power is a situation where individuals don’t know whether their money will be worth anything in a month, whether their private businesses will be nationalized in a day, and whether they’ll run afoul of the authorities. They’ve replaced the rule of law with the rule of Chavez. In that environment, you see serious capital flight, followed by economic collapse, followed by totalitarianism.

All I’m doing is pointing to the signs as they happen.

Of course, each Asian Tiger, including Taiwan, or its road to economic development followed an economic policy that focused heavily on direct government ownership and intervention. China’s current policies are as draconian as ever, however they have changed their veneer.

I mean, aren’t we being a little simplistic here?
Is it really socialism v capitalism? Maybe it’s because I’m from Canada, and we’re oblivious of this great epic battle, protected as we are.

Anyway, Venezuela is a country that suffered a political class indifferent to its teeming poverty, and Chavez is a result of these harsh politics. We do no-one any service by painting him red as the devil, without looking at flaws in the entire system.

So, the current economic problems related to supply are entirely caused by Chavez?

If Chavez had solved Venezuela’s economic problems is 8 years, he would be a genius. Sadly, he is merely a man, prone to inflationary mistakes.

However, I agree, 8 years in power is probably enough. This should be Chavez’s last term.

We all know its Bush’s fault. He gave all of Venezuela’s food to Halliburton and they took it to Dubai.

I won’t dispute that South America hasn’t always been the most economically advanced region. That being said, I think we have a clear case of an economy that could be strong being destroyed by socialist policies. After all, as the story points out, his price controls are contributing to the lack of produced resources (such as cattle), which were in greater supply before he came to power.

Or, if you look at another option: Taiwan. It’s a rock with 23 million people on it, light in natural resources. Yet capitalism and trade has allowed it to thrive, while the communists across the strait have languished in poverty. What happened when the communists in China started to respect individual property rights a little bit? Their wealth increased.

I’m just pointing out that the road Chavez is going down has been tread many times before, and always ends up in the same place: equality of misery.

Same old crap.

Please! Chavezesque Can you stop blaming someone else and start working if you have the capability to do so. I doubt it.

Eight years in power and still complaining.

“So why can’t the people of Venezuela get a hold of things like beef, chicken, cheese, and sugar? Maybe some of the Chavez apologists can explain this to me?”

This demand/supply problem, to overly simplify a historical dilemma, is not unique to Chavez’s Venezuela. The situation where much of the South American population lack access to sufficient resources predates Chavez’s policies, and is not news.

What is news is that we have a leftist strong-man in power to blame, rather than
right-wing oligarchs. That being said, Chavez supporters should note this article’s key premise that Chavez’s solutions can cause other unintended economic consequences.

But what else is new in South America’s less-than-pretty politics?