By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Half the Venezuelan economy has disappeared

torok said:
Vincoletto said:

Yep. Agree with everything you say. Maybe one day our leaders, or our people, will wake up. Probably not. I just gave up hope.

I think the awareness about the causes of the situation is increasing. It's a slow change, but I'm confident that it is happening. For the first time we are seeing huge political figures going to jail and I think the Brazilian people is getting fed up with the politicians and will demand some change. Brazilians just need to get serious about who they vote for in all elections. Guys like Cunha, Collor, Aécio, Maluf, all elected by popular vote. The people elect known corrupts and then wants to complain about corruption.

 

Yet, how can people properly choose their leaders if they dont have the proper education and knowledge to do it? Most of the population is very poor and of course targets of populism specially if you promise to give them something like a house, money or whatever. Thats why usually you see that in richer areas populism is much weaker than in poor areas.

So when you say "lets take back Petrobras from the capitalist pigs americans, the oil is ours" I understand why people believe it and go with those ideas. Its easy to appeal. Just education and knoledge can counter it. 

Anyway... lets wait and see what will happen in the future.  



Around the Network
Vincoletto said:

Yet, how can people properly choose their leaders if they dont have the proper education and knowledge to do it? Most of the population is very poor and of course targets of populism specially if you promise to give them something like a house, money or whatever. Thats why usually you see that in richer areas populism is much weaker than in poor areas.

So when you say "lets take back Petrobras from the capitalist pigs americans, the oil is ours" I understand why people believe it and go with those ideas. Its easy to appeal. Just education and knoledge can counter it. 

Anyway... lets wait and see what will happen in the future.  

The part in bold is the biggest issue, by far. But I think the people are learning that the current politicians are all crooks. Now, they have to understand that, in the next election, they shouldn't vote for these crooks.

Brazilians with more education are quickly moving to more Liberal approaches, focusing on decrease state intervention and reducing the bureaucracy in the country. I think this approach may start to gain traction with the general public due to the discredit of the political class. Then the people will understand that our government is too incompetent and corrupt to provide anything, so we should at least pay less taxes and have to deal with less bureaucracy.

I also think that the big entrepreneurs should have a bigger involvement with politics. If the government insists on failing budget targets, they will drag the economy down more and companies will suffer. Political parties like the Novo should receive more support from this segment of the society. It's in their interests and the general public will also benefit from increased industrial activity. While I'm not a big fan of the MBL approach, I also recon that they brought awareness to the Liberal cause.

We got some big improvements already. The labor reform at least included the co-responsibility of legal costs, so now a worker that starts a lawsuit for no valid reason has to pay the costs if he loses. Half of the labor lawsuits in the world used to happen in Brazil. The early 2018 reports point to a reduction of 50% to 60% and that's an amazing result.



torok said:
Leadified said:

The problem is that the US is actively trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela so they can swoop in an install their own US friendly regime. The state department today has announced that they want to "force democratic change", a massive oxymoron, and has admitted helping to collapse Venezuela's economy. "Getting the government out of the way" is exactly what the US and European countries want right now in order to reap the spoil's of Venezuela's natural resources, they do not care at all for the Venezuelan people.

Blaming the US for the Venezuelan situation is far fetched. Venezuela has a fragile economy, extremely dependent on oil. A sharp price decrease combined with Maduro destroying the small industry of the country resulted in a deep crisis. He also rigged elections and changed the constitution to remain in power. He is simply a corrupt dictator that is getting rich and making all his friends and family rich while starving the country. 

But most issues are more related to Maduro's incompetency. Morales is doing well in Bolivia. But you can argue that he follows a different socialism line, more akin to the Leninist policy on the 1920s that led to the URSS becoming a big power. He basically leaves small and medium business alone to work and operate. The US would also be interested in taking Morales down, since he is also socialist, anti-US, a big Fidel Castro fan and had conflicts with the US when he refused to stop the production of Coca.

While the US sanction make things worse, we are reaching the point where other countries really have to intervene before he starves his population to death. I don't think the US will take any military action, since that would be a diplomatic problem with the rest of Latin America. So yes, things will stay like this for a while. For the US, they do have interest in replacing guys like Morales and Maduro. But their approach to Latin America is way more hands-off since the end of the Cold War, so I think the Venezuelan crisis has nothing to do with the US. Sanctions or not, things would be as bad as they are now.

It's also becoming a huge issue for other Latin countries. Brazil has more than 40,000 refugees in the North region. We can have a major South American migrant crisis.

Bold: I am blaming the US for it's foreign policy, I've touched upon how Venezuela caused it's own economic problems in other posts. I am not sure how you can say that US has nothing to do with Venezuela when the US has become an involved party in the Venezuelan crisis, that just doesn't really make any sense.

Venezuela is a country of geopolitical significance, the country has massive oil and natural gas reserves but has managed not only to remain out of the US sphere of influence but work against it. Meanwhile Russia has been helping to prop up the regime in Venezuela to maintain the balance of power in the region. Military intervention in Venezuela would go poorly and it would probably help to actually unify Venezuela behind Maduro since the US would essentially be proving him right that the US is attempting to directly sink the country. Like Libya and Syria, the best time for intervention is during a civil war where it would help to give some legitimacy to the opposition and provide a casus belli to the international community. For now, the US can use it's economic power to pressure Venezuela, which is exactly what it is doing.



Leadified said:

Bold: I am blaming the US for it's foreign policy, I've touched upon how Venezuela caused it's own economic problems in other posts. I am not sure how you can say that US has nothing to do with Venezuela when the US has become an involved party in the Venezuelan crisis, that just doesn't really make any sense.

Venezuela is a country of geopolitical significance, the country has massive oil and natural gas reserves but has managed not only to remain out of the US sphere of influence but work against it. Meanwhile Russia has been helping to prop up the regime in Venezuela to maintain the balance of power in the region. Military intervention in Venezuela would go poorly and it would probably help to actually unify Venezuela behind Maduro since the US would essentially be proving him right that the US is attempting to directly sink the country. Like Libya and Syria, the best time for intervention is during a civil war where it would help to give some legitimacy to the opposition and provide a casus belli to the international community. For now, the US can use it's economic power to pressure Venezuela, which is exactly what it is doing.

What I mean is that they are involved now, trying to achieve some objectives (getting rid of Maduro). I'm just pointing that the whole crisis didn't started because of the US and even if there was zero US involvement it would still be almost as bad as it is now (and it seems we agree on that).

I also agree that military action would be a disaster for US foreign relations, specially with Latin America. The US is linked to several coups and is also not considered a reliable ally (Falkland war situation, that resulted in Latin countries refusing to help the US with Iraq and the end of the Rio treaty). But since the end of the Cold War the relations seem to have healed a bit, so it wouldn't be on their best interests to ruin this. 

I would say that the country the US fears most in relation to Latin America is not Russia, but China. While the Bolivarian governments seem to have an infatuations with the old URSS idea, the real treat to US hegemony in the region is Chinese money. With Trump avoiding trading deals or simply exiting existing ones, China is an interesting partner with plenty of demand for Latin exports.

Anyway, I don't think the Venezuela situation will escalate to a Civil War. We will probably see a coup (US involved or not with it) in the next few years.



torok said:
Leadified said:

Bold: I am blaming the US for it's foreign policy, I've touched upon how Venezuela caused it's own economic problems in other posts. I am not sure how you can say that US has nothing to do with Venezuela when the US has become an involved party in the Venezuelan crisis, that just doesn't really make any sense.

Venezuela is a country of geopolitical significance, the country has massive oil and natural gas reserves but has managed not only to remain out of the US sphere of influence but work against it. Meanwhile Russia has been helping to prop up the regime in Venezuela to maintain the balance of power in the region. Military intervention in Venezuela would go poorly and it would probably help to actually unify Venezuela behind Maduro since the US would essentially be proving him right that the US is attempting to directly sink the country. Like Libya and Syria, the best time for intervention is during a civil war where it would help to give some legitimacy to the opposition and provide a casus belli to the international community. For now, the US can use it's economic power to pressure Venezuela, which is exactly what it is doing.

What I mean is that they are involved now, trying to achieve some objectives (getting rid of Maduro). I'm just pointing that the whole crisis didn't started because of the US and even if there was zero US involvement it would still be almost as bad as it is now (and it seems we agree on that).

I also agree that military action would be a disaster for US foreign relations, specially with Latin America. The US is linked to several coups and is also not considered a reliable ally (Falkland war situation, that resulted in Latin countries refusing to help the US with Iraq and the end of the Rio treaty). But since the end of the Cold War the relations seem to have healed a bit, so it wouldn't be on their best interests to ruin this. 

I would say that the country the US fears most in relation to Latin America is not Russia, but China. While the Bolivarian governments seem to have an infatuations with the old URSS idea, the real treat to US hegemony in the region is Chinese money. With Trump avoiding trading deals or simply exiting existing ones, China is an interesting partner with plenty of demand for Latin exports.

Anyway, I don't think the Venezuela situation will escalate to a Civil War. We will probably see a coup (US involved or not with it) in the next few years.

China is definitely the main economic adversary to the US, since Russia's economy is only the size of Australia's. But I would lump China and Russia together because while they're not technically allies, both powers have been working together against the US. Russian or Chinese actions are often followed upon by each other since they are much stronger together than separate. China has the money, Russia has the connections.

As you said with Trump, he has created an opening for his rivals to swoop in and I'm sure they will do everything in their power so Trump's successor will be helpless to stop them.



Around the Network
Leadified said:

China is definitely the main economic adversary to the US, since Russia's economy is only the size of Australia's. But I would lump China and Russia together because while they're not technically allies, both powers have been working together against the US. Russian or Chinese actions are often followed upon by each other since they are much stronger together than separate. China has the money, Russia has the connections.

As you said with Trump, he has created an opening for his rivals to swoop in and I'm sure they will do everything in their power so Trump's successor will be helpless to stop them.

Russia is, at least, way more keen in directly challenging the US. China is more reserved, but it is quickly challenging the US economic hegemony. Russia is in a relative economic crisis. But yes, they seem to be on the same page and share a common "enemy", so they will pretty much act together from now on. China also is not only in a good economic situation, but they also have their most powerful leader in decades. Jinping is clearly intending to change China's status as local power to a global superpower. Even in Latin America, it's incredible how much China is investing. And I'm really not complaining, for most countries here it is great to diversify economic relations. The US and the EU are always trying to protect their own agriculture while demanding lower taxes for their own products. I think Latin countries will be able to negotiate better terms with China. The US always treated the region as an afterthought and focused on its OTAN friends, so maybe it's time for the emergent countries to negotiate with each other instead of dealing with the old geopolitics.

I got to say that people in the US should be more cautious about Trump. It's clear now that Putin employed a lot of effort and money in rigging the US elections to make Trump win. He risked a diplomatic crisis when doing so. The only remaining question is what was Trump's role on this mess. Is he just an useful idiot, so Putin wanted him to win so he would take the US in bad directions and weaken its global influence? Or is he somewhat connected to the Russians, which has some serious implications? I also believe that Trump could actually be innocent, but Putin manipulated the situation to make it look otherwise. The thing here is that Trump is not that brilliant and has zero experience with politics (being a businessman is a whole different thing), while Putin is an extremely capable politician and manipulator. I think people fail to realize how dangerous Putin can be when you're his enemy.



torok said:
Leadified said:

China is definitely the main economic adversary to the US, since Russia's economy is only the size of Australia's. But I would lump China and Russia together because while they're not technically allies, both powers have been working together against the US. Russian or Chinese actions are often followed upon by each other since they are much stronger together than separate. China has the money, Russia has the connections.

As you said with Trump, he has created an opening for his rivals to swoop in and I'm sure they will do everything in their power so Trump's successor will be helpless to stop them.

Russia is, at least, way more keen in directly challenging the US. China is more reserved, but it is quickly challenging the US economic hegemony. Russia is in a relative economic crisis. But yes, they seem to be on the same page and share a common "enemy", so they will pretty much act together from now on. China also is not only in a good economic situation, but they also have their most powerful leader in decades. Jinping is clearly intending to change China's status as local power to a global superpower. Even in Latin America, it's incredible how much China is investing. And I'm really not complaining, for most countries here it is great to diversify economic relations. The US and the EU are always trying to protect their own agriculture while demanding lower taxes for their own products. I think Latin countries will be able to negotiate better terms with China. The US always treated the region as an afterthought and focused on its OTAN friends, so maybe it's time for the emergent countries to negotiate with each other instead of dealing with the old geopolitics.

I got to say that people in the US should be more cautious about Trump. It's clear now that Putin employed a lot of effort and money in rigging the US elections to make Trump win. He risked a diplomatic crisis when doing so. The only remaining question is what was Trump's role on this mess. Is he just an useful idiot, so Putin wanted him to win so he would take the US in bad directions and weaken its global influence? Or is he somewhat connected to the Russians, which has some serious implications? I also believe that Trump could actually be innocent, but Putin manipulated the situation to make it look otherwise. The thing here is that Trump is not that brilliant and has zero experience with politics (being a businessman is a whole different thing), while Putin is an extremely capable politician and manipulator. I think people fail to realize how dangerous Putin can be when you're his enemy.

Yeah, I think that's fair and double that on Putin. Russia may be weak economically but that has not stopped Putin from exerting his politics in a way that was not thought possible only just a few years ago.



palou said:
Pemalite said:

Citation needed.
Australia produces more food than it consumes.

We also have a ton of resources to be energy and resource self-sufficient (Which we also export to the USA), tons of Uranium and Coal, Iron Ore coming out of our Posteriors... Oil and Gas? Sure do.
Plus... We have the advantage of a smaller population to reduce the strain on all of the resources on this continent.

However... Despite that we will still import food and resources if it's cheaper, that doesn't mean we are reliant on those countries... It just makes us financially prudent.

Economically self-sufficient, I mine. Sure, you could survive alone. Would you be able to sustain an economy anywhere close to what you currently hold? No, certainly not. The majority of the value of consumer products purchased in Australia (phones, cars, clothes, etc...) are foreign (as is the case everywhere), and Australia certainly does *not* have the capacity to sustain that within its borders, either.

Looking through the data, yeah... US isn't either. Closer, though. Mostly just by being bigger, lol.

We aren't heavy with manufacturing. We are a resources and services driven economy, that's partially a good thing as we don't need to concern ourselves with trying to compete with China.

But that doesn't mean if the day Australia was to "go it alone" that we couldn't, we do have all the resources we need.
We also do manufacture Clothes, in-fact we have been very successful with our surf brands world-wide like Billabong, Ripcurl. - Even Quicksilver started in Australia before having American claws sunk into them. :P

Car manufacturing (Holden and Toyota) ceased a few years ago, but we do still manufacture vehicles in a small capacity (Military, specialized, market specific and so on).
Ford Australia still has design and development facilities, meaning we are one of the few countries that can design, develop and manufacture mass market cars from absolute scratch if we wanted.

Where we do come up short though is silicon/electronics/processors, we don't have any fabs.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
palou said:

Economically self-sufficient, I mine. Sure, you could survive alone. Would you be able to sustain an economy anywhere close to what you currently hold? No, certainly not. The majority of the value of consumer products purchased in Australia (phones, cars, clothes, etc...) are foreign (as is the case everywhere), and Australia certainly does *not* have the capacity to sustain that within its borders, either.

Looking through the data, yeah... US isn't either. Closer, though. Mostly just by being bigger, lol.

We aren't heavy with manufacturing. We are a resources and services driven economy, that's partially a good thing as we don't need to concern ourselves with trying to compete with China.

But that doesn't mean if the day Australia was to "go it alone" that we couldn't, we do have all the resources we need.
We also do manufacture Clothes, in-fact we have been very successful with our surf brands world-wide like Billabong, Ripcurl. - Even Quicksilver started in Australia before having American claws sunk into them. :P

Car manufacturing (Holden and Toyota) ceased a few years ago, but we do still manufacture vehicles in a small capacity (Military, specialized, market specific and so on).
Ford Australia still has design and development facilities, meaning we are one of the few countries that can design, develop and manufacture mass market cars from absolute scratch if we wanted.

Where we do come up short though is silicon/electronics/processors, we don't have any fabs.

I mean yes, you participate *somewhere* in the process of manufacturing modern consumer good, and designing, and etc... but the point is, so does everyone else. 

 

This kind of stuff:

 

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4f613010-73bc-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9?source=next&quality=highest&width=700

 

And each of those parts could certainly be broken down further, where you'd start seeing non-EU countries start to pop up.

 

The enormous efficiency of the modern economy stems from hyper-specialization, something that could certainly not be scaled down to a country the size of Australia effectively.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

palou said:

I mean yes, you participate *somewhere* in the process of manufacturing modern consumer good, and designing, and etc... but the point is, so does everyone else. 

 

This kind of stuff:

 

https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F4f613010-73bc-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9?source=next&quality=highest&width=700

 

And each of those parts could certainly be broken down further, where you'd start seeing non-EU countries start to pop up.

 

The enormous efficiency of the modern economy stems from hyper-specialization, something that could certainly not be scaled down to a country the size of Australia effectively.

We were manufacturing ALL the smaller specialized components for vehicles rather than importing them for decades. And we can return to that at any time, those factory's still exist, just in a reduced fashion... And are actually being switched over to doing components for the military as our car manufacturing industry winds down.

The way we did it was a company like Holden would re-use various components over multiple vehicle releases, which helped reduce the financial cost over the long term.
For instance... A bonnet on one Holden commodore would be re-used on 3-4 later vehicle releases and thus be in production for 5+ years.

We don't actually have Nuclear Energy either, we have all the technology to build Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power Plants and we have one of the largest Uranium reserves in the world... The potential is there if the need ever arises.

The EU is far different to that of Australia though, there are dozens and dozens of smaller countries all sharing a land border with each other and many have integrated their markets with one another, Australia doesn't have that Luxury, with the exception of New Zealand to a smaller degree.

Just remember though, just because a country imports something, doesn't mean they can't be self sufficient, it just makes them financially prudent.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--