Capitalism is Violence

How Venezuela Struck It Poor
The tragic — and totally avoidable — self-destruction of one of the world’s richest oil economies.
...
In the spring of 1959, at a secretive meeting at a yacht club in Cairo, Venezuela’s then-minister of mines and hydrocarbons, Juan Pablo Pérez Alfonso, hatched a plan to give big oil-producing countries more control over their black gold — and a greater share of the wealth it promised to create. A year later, his scheme would be formally christened the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC. Venezuela, which sits atop what are arguably the biggest petroleum reserves in the world, was the only non-Middle Eastern country to be included — a testament to its importance to the global oil business.

Venezuela was considered rich in the early 1960s: It produced more than 10 percent of the world’s crude and had a per capita GDP many times bigger than that of its neighbors Brazil and Colombia — and not far behind that of the United States. At the time, Venezuela was eager to diversify beyond just oil and avoid the so-called resource curse, a common phenomenon in which easy money from commodities such as oil and gold leads governments to neglect other productive parts of their economies. But by the 1970s, Venezuela was riding a spike in oil prices to what looked like a never-ending economic bonanza. Complemented by years of stable democracy, it seemed a model country in an otherwise often troubled region.

Such success makes the sorry state of Venezuela’s oil industry today, not to mention that of the country at large, all the more surprising — and tragic. The same state that, six decades ago, dreamed up the idea of a cartel of oil exporters now must import petroleum to meet its needs. Crude production has tanked, hitting a 28-year low in the fall of 2017 when it dipped under 2 million barrels a day. “I don’t think we’ve ever seen a collapse of that magnitude [anywhere] without a war, without sanctions,” said Francisco Monaldi, a Latin America expert at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Venezuela has not, of course, fought a war in recent years. But the combination of plummeting oil revenues and years of government mismanagement has virtually killed off the country’s economy, sparking a humanitarian crisis that threatens to engulf the region. Caracas refuses to track inflation (or at least publish its findings), but the National Assembly calculates the annual rate to be more than 4,000 percent, and the International Monetary Fund predicts it could hit 13,000 percent this year. Given how much prices have already risen since January, the real number could be 10 times higher.
...
What explains the country’s precipitous decline from being one of Latin America’s richest and most stable states? Mark Green, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, blames President Nicolás Maduro — who, in May 2018, won another six-year term in elections widely denounced as fraudulent — and his “delusional” policies. But while there’s no question Maduro is partially culpable, to fully understand how a country blessed with the world’s biggest oil endowment could end up so crushingly poor requires going much further back. The fuse for the bomb that is now blowing up Venezuela’s oil industry — and the country along with it — was deliberately lit and fanned by Maduro’s predecessor and mentor, the strongman Hugo Chávez, not long after he swept into power in the late 1990s.
...
The decline and fall of Venezuela’s oil industry essentially begins with its nationalization in 1976, a time of booming crude prices and rising resource nationalism. President Carlos Andrés Pérez sought a much greater role for the state over the economy and especially wanted to use the country’s fast-growing oil wealth to turbocharge development. That year, to gain full national control over the oil fields, Caracas banished foreign oil firms and created a new, state-run oil monopoly called Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). The moves marked the capstone to Pérez Alfonso’s decades-long dream of Venezuela grabbing full control of its destiny. It was also the logical outcome of the widely held belief that the country’s oil, discovered in 1922 on the shores of Lake Maracaibo, was national patrimony.

At first, Venezuela’s state-owned oil company stood out from peers such as Petróleos Mexicanos in many ways. A large number of its executives, for example, had previously worked for foreign companies in the country and imbued the new firm with a business-oriented outlook and a high degree of professionalism. PDVSA had a lean workforce, an efficient cost structure, and a global outlook: A decade after its creation, the company acquired half of Citgo, the big U.S. refiner, and stakes in a pair of European refineries.
...
By the mid-1990s, international firms, including Chevron and ConocoPhillips, had moved back into the country and were hard at work unlocking Venezuela’s massive heavy oil deposits. But in 1998, the price of oil collapsed again, dipping to $10 a barrel. The impact on Venezuela — which, like many oil-rich countries, had never managed to diversify its economy despite a bout of reform efforts in the 1970s — was severe, given that petroleum exports then represented about one-third of the state’s revenues. Then along came Chávez, a former army lieutenant colonel who’d served time in prison for an abortive coup attempt in 1992. He won the 1998 presidential election on the promise to reshape and restore Venezuela’s reeling economy.

Among his first targets: the technocrats at PDVSA, especially the company’s deeply knowledgeable then-chairman and CEO, Luis Giusti, who’d led the drive to reopen the country’s oil sector. “Chávez saw Giusti as a potential rival. In fact, Chávez used the slogan ‘PDVSA is part of a state within a state,’” said Juan Fernández, a former PDVSA manager who would also fall afoul of the strongman. Giusti, alarmed by Chávez’s plans for the oil company, resigned just as he took office in early 1999; he was then replaced by a revolving cast of political appointees. The departure of Giusti, who’d spent three decades in the Venezuelan oil business and had won international plaudits for overhauling and modernizing the state-run firm since taking over in 1994, would prove to be bad news for PDVSA’s fortunes.

Chávez’s goal was to exert control of PDVSA and maximize its revenue, which he needed to fund his socialist agenda. But achieving the latter required cooperating with the rest of OPEC, which, as in the 1980s, wanted to cut production in order to raise prices. The problem for Chávez was that many of the PDVSA’s then-managers wanted to increaseproduction, by continuing the development of Venezuela’s technically challenging heavy oil fields. To do so, they needed to reinvest more of the company’s earnings rather than hand them all over to the government. So the managers had to go.

Unfortunately for Venezuela, Chávez — like many of the people he appointed to run PDVSA — knew nothing about the business that was so central to the country’s prosperity. “He was ignorant about everything to do with oil, everything to do with geology, engineering, the economics of oil,” said Pedro Burelli, a former PDVSA board member who left the company when Chávez took power. “His was a completely encyclopedic ignorance.”

But Chávez wasn’t the type to let that stop him. In 2001, the former paratrooper pushed through a new energy law that jacked up the royalties foreign oil firms would have to pay the government. It also mandated that PDVSA would lead all new oil exploration and production; foreign firms could only hold minority stakes in whatever partnerships they struck with the national company.
...
The president survived the putsch, but his popularity plummeted — especially inside PDVSA. By the end of 2002, opposition to Chávez had solidified, and big labor groups called for a national strike in hopes of pressuring him to leave office. Oil workers backed the effort, setting the stage for what would turn out to be the critical step in PDVSA’s road to ruin.

During the two-month work stoppage, PDVSA’s output plummeted as field workers stopped pumping and tanker crews refused to leave port. Venezuela’s oil production fell from close to 3 million barrels a day before the strike to levels as low as 200,000 barrels a day in December 2002.

Crucially for Chávez, however, the international oil companies refused to join the protest. “The multinationals kept producing during the strike,” said Monaldi of Rice University. “That is what saved him,” by blunting the economic impact of the protest.

Chávez immediately fought back. During the strike, he axed scores of senior executives, including Juan Fernández, one of the organizers of the protest. In the months that followed, the pink slips kept coming, and by the time the smoke finally cleared, Chávez had fired more than 18,000 workers. With them went most of the managerial expertise and technical know-how PDVSA had managed to preserve during the earlier purges.

This evisceration of the PDVSA’s human capital would prove the most damaging of Chávez’s many moves against the company. Even his own government soon realized the harm it had done. Accidents and spills began to proliferate, and in 2005, a top energy ministry official admitted privately that it would take at least 15 years to rebuild the technical skills lost by the mass firings. Another energy ministry official even asked U.S. diplomats in Caracas to help arrange training in the United States. And in the years since, the situation has only worsened. Conditions at the company (and in the economy) are now so bad that employees take home a pittance — just a handful of dollars a month — and face political pressure to support the regime. Such treatment has led to the large-scale flight of skilled workers: more than 25,000 since last year, union officials say. According to Reuters, the exodus has grown so big that some PDVSA offices have begun refusing to let their workers resign.
...
For all Chávez’s abuses and mistakes, Venezuela’s oil industry managed to stagger along for a surprisingly long time. Production held virtually steady from 2002 (just before the strike) to 2008, when global oil prices peaked at almost $150 a barrel. That year, Venezuela earned about $60 billion from oil. (These production numbers come from OPEC; the government’s own estimates are higher and viewed skeptically by the rest of the industry.)

The higher prices more than made up for the slight decline in production — between 2002 and 2008, Venezuela’s output fell from 2.6 million barrels a day to 2.5 million — allowing Chávez to keep spending and masking the need for a major overhaul of the industry. But even high crude prices couldn’t hide the deeper economic dysfunctions caused by Chávez’s efforts to build what he called “21st-century socialism.” Shortages of common consumer goods became endemic. A country that was once an exporter of agricultural products had to start importing lots of government-subsidized food — another common feature of the resource curse. “In 2007, there were already intermittent shortages,” said Patrick Duddy, who served as U.S. ambassador in Caracas from 2007 to 2008 and again from 2009 to 2010. “There was, at times, no milk of any sort on the store shelves, not fresh, not powdered, not condensed — and this was when oil prices were soaring. It was startling.”
...
Reality finally came crashing down in the summer of 2014, about a year after Chávez died from cancer and was succeeded by Maduro. Oil prices collapsed from a high of more than $100 a barrel in the summer to less than half of that by January 2015. By the end of that year, Venezuelan oil was selling for less than $30 a barrel, even as the budget was predicated on prices of $60 a barrel. By this point, Venezuela had become nearly wholly dependent on oil revenues, which made up about 95 percent of its export earnings. Cheaper oil tipped the economy into recession in 2014 and a full-blown crisis in 2015, with GDP shrinking by almost 6 percent and inflation exploding. And because Venezuela had neglected to diversify its economy, the country was out of options.
...
All these problems cost PDVSA — and Venezuela — huge amounts of cash. Selling oil at a discount, shipping it off to China (and Russia) to pay off the national debt, and subsidizing Venezuelan drivers cost the company, and the country, more than $20 billion a year, Monaldi estimated. Among other things, this massive shortfall has made it increasingly difficult for PDVSA to pay service companies such as Halliburton and Schlumberger, which help it drill for oil. Last year, the two companies wrote off more than $1.5 billion in unpaid bills owed by PDVSA. And since they’re not getting paid, they’ve slowed their work on the mature oil fields that were once Venezuela’s livelihood. That means even less light oil — which makes all the industry’s other problems even harder to solve.

That toxic mix collided in 2017, when production suddenly collapsed by 30 percent, marking a net decline of 2 million barrels a day since Chávez launched his plan to use Venezuela’s huge oil endowment to build a socialist paradise. The oil ministry now is reportedly bracing for a further fall during the rest of this year, to as low as 1.2 million barrels a day.
...
Real reform would require a wholesale change in the country’s economic management: getting hyperinflation under control, establishing a stable and realistic exchange rate, and building an enforceable legal framework that could offer foreign investors some semblance of predictability and protection. Of course, it’s impossible to imagine Maduro doing any of those things, especially after recently winning (or stealing) another term. And his re-election carries additional short-term risks for the tottering Venezuelan oil sector. The United States is considering additional sanctions that could limit exports of U.S. crude and refined products to Venezuela or even ban the purchase of Venezuelan crude by U.S. refineries. Either move, or both, would deal yet another body blow to an industry already on its knees. What likely can’t be put back together again is the state oil company. “There is no money in the world that can bring that back,” Burelli said. “You might be able to rebuild an oil sector full of private players but not PDVSA.”

Ultimately, Caracas’s bid to nationalize the oil industry and assert its sovereign rights to the country’s black gold has all but ensured that less and less of that wealth will be left for Venezuelans. With no other vibrant economic sector, the only way to fund the government is by increasing oil production — which would require investing up to $10 billion a year for a decade, Burelli suggested — and the only way to attract that kind of investment is by offering international companies favorable terms. That means a bigger cut for them and a smaller cut for the state.
...
 
In past couple of centuries, the economic issues for humankind have settled into two polar applications, adjusted by the onset of the Industrial Revolution = extensive development of machinery and mechanized transportation, etc.

On the one side there is the concept of Free Enterprise;
QUOTE:
Free enterprise, or the free market, refers to an economy where the market determines prices, products, and services rather than the government. Businesses and services are free of government control. Alternatively, free enterprise could refer to an ideological or legal system whereby commercial activities are primarily regulated through private measures.

In principle and in practice, free markets are defined by private property rights, voluntary contracts, and competitive bidding for goods and services in the marketplace. This framework is in contrast to public ownership of property, coercive activity, and fixed or controlled distribution of goods and services.

In Western countries, free enterprise is associated with laissez-faire capitalism and philosophical libertarianism. However, free enterprise is distinct from capitalism. Capitalism refers to a method by which scarce resources are produced and distributed. Free enterprise refers to a set of legal rules regarding commercial interaction.
...
OR ....
Capitalism
...
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The counter-point; or polar opposite is Socialism~Communism;
Socialism
...
Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and workers' self-management of enterprises.[8][9] It includes the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10] Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative or of equity.[11] While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element.
...

Communism
...
Communism (from Latin communis, "common, universal")[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money[3][4] and the state.
...

Would seem the difference between Socialism and Communism is the amount of National State Control versus more Local government control. However, even that looks to be more nuance than substance and to many, both are a " 'red' apple ", one a MacIntosh and the other a Fuji ~metaphorically speaking.

One useful comparison, or metaphor, can be found in fiction of the form of "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand, where a fictitious and near future USA has become divided into those whom produce wealth and those whom consume the redistributed wealth. In essence, there are the wealth "Makers" versus the wealth "Takers".
Atlas Shrugged

In many ways, these terms are applicable to the current divide in politics and economics (the two being closely tied), not just here in the USA, but across the globe. One could say there are two types of humans;
1) those whom want to be Makers and have as little guv'mint as possible,
2) and those whom want to be Takers and use guv'mint as means to legalize their theft from the producers~Makers.

Considering how this divide/conflict can quickly delve into "life or death" matters, it is no small academic discussion/debate/argument.

Another engaging and informative fiction presentation come from "the Dean of American Science Fiction"; Robert A. Heinlein's novel;
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress
 
Dufus thinks every Commie leader lived in an 800 sq ft apartment and budgeted meals.
Private wealth poisons society regardless of the dominant political ideology; however, capitalism is far more efficient in generating economic inequality.
View attachment 484154
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepositor...p-public-good-or-private-wealth-210119-en.pdf
Ah, so everyone being poor is the best society.
Again, why aren’t you in North Korea?
Oh yeah. You know you’re full of shit and so you stay in Capitalist America.
 
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest
"The number of billionaires has doubled since the financial crisis and their fortunes grow by $2.5bn a day, yet the super-rich and corporations are paying lower rates of tax than they have in decades.

"The human costs – children without teachers, clinics without medicines – are huge.

"Piecemeal private services punish poor people and privilege elites. Women suffer the most, and are left to fill the gaps in public services with many hours of unpaid care."

https://oxfamilibrary.openrepositor...p-public-good-or-private-wealth-210119-en.pdf
 
From 1933 to 1945 Germany is ruled by the political party that calls itself;

NATIONAL SOCIALIST German Workers Party

- can we get anything more anti-Capitalist in name and identity ???
So why did Hitler kill communists and give a medal to Henry Ford, Rube?
As already pointed out by another poster here, communists also kill communists, and have their differences. See Russia versus China as one example.

In the case of Hitler, and the NSDAP that supported him, and served as the minions/lackeys all dictators need, they were NATIONAL(German) socialists and the communist of Russia were INTERNATIONAL socialists, as well as, in the minds of Hitler and the NSDAP, the stooges/fools/tools of international Jewry which was seeking to control the world.

As for Henry Ford, not only did he aid the rebuilding, post WWI Germany by setting up a factory there (along with supporting/endorsing much of the Nazi ideology), but he also helped the early, budding communist Russia by establishing a truck/automotive factor in that nation.

You might try learning some history - Rube.
 
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest
"The number of billionaires has doubled since the financial crisis and their fortunes grow by $2.5bn a day, yet the super-rich and corporations are paying lower rates of tax than they have in decades.

"The human costs – children without teachers, clinics without medicines – are huge.

"Piecemeal private services punish poor people and privilege elites. Women suffer the most, and are left to fill the gaps in public services with many hours of unpaid care."

https://oxfamilibrary.openrepositor...p-public-good-or-private-wealth-210119-en.pdf

Corporations and businesses treat taxes as another cost of the goods and/or services thye provide and pass such on to their customers/consumers. In essence it is usually the customer/consumer whom pays the taxes levied against corporations/businesses. This is basic Econ 101.

Also, those whom have IRA, 401K, and/or other savings and investments, for retirement say, are mostly placing those funds into the stocks of businesses and corporations whom if profitable, will show an increase in value of their stocks and pay dividends to the stockholders. If such enterprises are not profitable, they will fold and go bankrupt and the investors will loose the money they invested.

Also, FWIW, those "billionaires" don't bury their money in coffee cans in their backyard, they reinvest in businesses and factories, etc. where they can grow more wealth and provide jobs. Someone has to work in those expensive restaurants, build the yachts and private jets, etc.

Also, some of those "elites" didn't start out that way. Bill gates came from a middle class family, dropped out of college and started Microsoft in the garage of his parents home. Capitalism makes such possible. Socialism doesn't.

Again, Econ 101. Something you appear to be grossly ignorant of .

"Poor"(poverty) is a category in any economic demographic~breakout where income and/or wealth are stratified.

The classification for "poor" or "poverty line" are subjectively set by government agencies and some NGOs, and vary from nation to nation. Basically, at some arbitrary level, line on the incomes(and wealth) scales is the "poverty line". Poverty is a relative classification in the overall economic scheme.

In the USA, most of our "poor" have a roof over their head, electricity, running water, a TV, often a computer and most have a car/motor vehicle. In essence "poor" in the USA; or most of the Western, developed nations; tend to have lifestyles that would be considered middle to upper class in most other nations.

i.e. it's relative.
wink.gif


No economic system is flawless. Capitalism/Free Enterprise provides incentive over coercion; rewards in proportion to investment of knowledge, labor and capital - usually; but also includes an element of risk(chance) along with potential for varied success.

Socialism/Communism is basically a form of using the State/Government to legalize theft from the productive to "redistribute" to those less productive or non-productive. As practiced historically, and to date, it also shows as great a disparity in wealth "acquisition"~ more correctly re-distribution; and tends to share the poverty over a larger demographic and proportion of the population. See the movie; "Moscow on the Hudson" for an example of the nature of life in the USSR just prior to it's collapse;

Those few nation where there is the illusion of "socialism" "working", don't have as many satisfied citizens as claimed but more importantly, tend to provide via the National "credit card" of deficit funding and growing Debt, passing the costs off to future generations of citizens/taxpayers.
Debt to GDP Ratios;

BTW, once again you present a lengthy (@106) page link(report) from a blatant propaganda site and thing we will invest time to read through that trash. Can't help wonder how much of their income gores to support their staff, board, and "operating expenses".
 
Last edited:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest
"The number of billionaires has doubled since the financial crisis and their fortunes grow by $2.5bn a day, yet the super-rich and corporations are paying lower rates of tax than they have in decades.

"The human costs – children without teachers, clinics without medicines – are huge.

"Piecemeal private services punish poor people and privilege elites. Women suffer the most, and are left to fill the gaps in public services with many hours of unpaid care."

https://oxfamilibrary.openrepositor...p-public-good-or-private-wealth-210119-en.pdf

The number of billionaires has doubled since the financial crisis and their fortunes grow by $2.5bn a day,

Yup. Technology allows the most productive to move further and further above the least productive.

yet the super-rich and corporations are paying lower rates of tax than they have in decades.

So what? You wouldn't suddenly be more productive if taxes were raised on the rich.

"The human costs – children without teachers, clinics without medicines – are huge.


We spend more on teachers, clinics and medicines than ever before.

"Piecemeal private services punish poor people and privilege elites.

I don't recall many private services in the USSR, do you?
Why were our poor people, even the idiots like you, so much better off here than there?
 
I know dozens of first generation immigrants.
A. They moved here because of America’s economic system of Capitalism.
B. They are all very much more well off economically than when they came here.
Greedy people love capitalism.
The people you've met will probably see their children move to China.
Will you join them if you earn more money?
 
I know dozens of first generation immigrants.
A. They moved here because of America’s economic system of Capitalism.
B. They are all very much more well off economically than when they came here.
Greedy people love capitalism.
The people you've met will probably see their children move to China.
Will you join them if you earn more money?
Yet you refuse to leave America.
Don’t blame you. America is the greatest nation on earth.
 
I know dozens of first generation immigrants.
A. They moved here because of America’s economic system of Capitalism.
B. They are all very much more well off economically than when they came here.
Greedy people love capitalism.
The people you've met will probably see their children move to China.
Will you join them if you earn more money?

Greedy people love capitalism.

Stupid people love communism.
 
" Ascetics Who Place Themselves On Pedestals Of Authority To Dictate Puritanical Standards Upon Others "

* Common Psychopathy Of Authoritarian Idealists *

Greedy people love capitalism.
The people you've met will probably see their children move to China.
Will you join them if you earn more money?
All people are greedy .

The similarities in dictates between religions proffering demands based on theism and religions proffering demands based on secular humanism are astounding .
 
You pulled that number directly out of your ass.
https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2021/article/capitalisn-t-when-profit-motive-kills

"The consulting firm McKinsey has agreed to pay nearly $600 million for its role in advising pharmaceutical companies on opioid sales.

"Has the profit motive gone out of control, and have business schools played a role in that?"
Your PlayStation - the only thing you own - only exists because of capitalism.
 

Forum List

Back
Top