• To say that "Socialism" is the cause of Venezuela's failure is to define it as an all-or-nothing approach. Canada and Norway are more socialist than the USA, but all are mixed economies to various degrees. The failure of Venezuela is that Maduro operates as a dictator, having an elite control the economy which tanked when its primary industry - oil - collapsed. With nothing to fall back on, Maduro took a "let them eat cake" attitude. A functional socialist system would be more like antebellum Federalism, if all went well. But without a Federal government and Court exerting control, what was to stop arguments between sovereign states in a loose federation from degrading into skirmishes and what was to stop states with no control from above from degrading into feudalism - or Maduro style fascism?
    • Archie Bunker
      We know the history of Venezuela, which is it's definition is a presidential republic. But, after the move to a more socialized form of government, things sure went downhill under Chavez. The PSUV continued through Chavez and now Maduro. When the government comes in and takes over large swaths of the economy (especially the oil in this case), that's the beginning of the end. It is still a socialist-based country, now being run by a dictator.
    • mushroom
      Were things better off in the days of Rockefeller, Carnegie and Gould and when capitalism was allowed to run amok? There have to be some controls, or we'd be the United States of Google-Apple-Microsoft (hey, it could still happen).

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy