Jump to content

Talk:Economy of Venezuela/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Industrial production figures

That 0.5% figure is waaay too old. Manufacturing has gone markedly up in Venezuela (at least per the BCV's figures released for Q1 '07). Darth Sidious 19:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we short our share of Venezuela?

With all the privatization talk from Chavez should I sell my Latin Amerca funds? :-) 70.251.92.241 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC) New computer, wasn't signed in Mr Christopher 04:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There are 21 states in Latin America and Venezuela is just one of them.

During the last four years Venezuela´s GDP has grown an average of almost 10%, like China.

The PDVSA lockout promoted by the corrupt socialists who tried to depress the Venezuelan economy and justified a military coup against the elected Government is one of the darkest pages in Venezuelan History from my point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.53.111.123 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Relevance

What does this sentence: "The East African nation of Eritrea is home to the most expensive, gas there costs $2.50 per liter. " have to do with the economy of venezuela? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.47.60 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Labour structure?

I have heard Chavez is pushing towards a cooperative model. If this is an important plank of his 'Bolivarian' platform it deserves a mention. What % of the workforce is cooperative? Damburger 21:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit: para re-added here is misleading (source relates to smuggling) and has a meaningless number (750 tons - so what? is that a lot?) in a minor news issue. Also in the other para, leaving it as vague "government action" is better as the source mentions a number of possibilities. Rd232 talk 16:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop watering down the info about price controls on food

I was the only person who had any interest in adding this info to the original Hugo Chavez article. When you erased it from there and copied it here, you watered it down and made it harder to undersrtand. I have been reading about this topic for half a decade, and I know very well how to accurately convey what the sources are saying.

You have not added anything on this subject. Instead, you are merely erasing and watering down what I have written. I never erase your contributions to the artricle. Please don't erase mine. The only reason I developed an interest in Chavez is because of his price controls on food. Your edits are an attempt to water down the info, not to add info.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bringing this here from Talk:Hugo Chavez is not helpful. Please continue the discussion there. Rd232 talk 14:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You erased my info form that article. So I am putting it in this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC on versions

two versions of the same topic have been developed (diff between the two - which is better? cf RFC for Hugo Chavez (Talk:Hugo Chavez#RFC on radical revision) where the issue originated. Rd232 talk 16:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1964 - 1999 gap

Is it there a gap that should be filled here ? Procule (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

yes. Contributions welcome! Rd232 talk 03:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Inflation table

I added the table on inflation (1980 - present) today. The data are correct but I'm having a strange problem with the formatting. If I look at the html for the table in my own browser it looks ok, but when I put it here as wiki markup I get a problem with the vertical spacing starting in year 1983. It looks bad. I've messed around with it a bit, but so far haven't succeeded in fixing the problem. Maybe somebody else can locate the glitch. I'm leaving the table in because it's basically correct, it just needs attention to fix up its appearance. Ong saluri (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've tidied it up a bit, if anyone want to work on it a bit more (e.g. linig up decimal points), feel free! I'll make a note on Ong saluri's talk. PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I fixed where it messed up the spacing of the section. It seems to look good to me. hmwithτ 20:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Reviewing recent changes, generally fine but

  • this is WP:SYNTH - the source does not say Chavez made any link with food prices, and nor does the source.
  • this contradicts WP:LEAD: the lead section should be a summary of the whole article. It should be improved+updated, sure, but not cut.

Whole thing needs loads of work, especially on the history. And what's already there could really do with a complete restructure/rewrite. Rd232 talk 23:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

For a partial listing of items presented incompletely here, see User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Economic Data

The graphs on the side of the statistics section are woefully out of date. They don't go past 2005. I think it is time we systematically updated this page. --Schwindtd (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I will would definitely support that. ValenShephard (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, this came out just in time :) -- Update on the Venezuelan Economy -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh my dear Jesus, its the dreaded Weisbrot, run! Only kidding, I'll try to include some of that in the article if I have some time. Thanks for the link. ValenShephard (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Jut a warning. Be careful with Weisbrot for two reasons. First, his stench will attract editors who disagree, and second, he has a lot of opinion analysis. I would just pull out his statistics and maybe do some other research to confirm his stats. He may be right, but "better safe than sorry." --Schwindtd (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Bloomberg (August 19, 2010) confirms some of the Weisbrot stats, but it seems to contradict Weisbrot's suggestion that Venezuela has already emerged from Recession. I don't know... there seem to be lot of conflicting stats and presentations. Hmmm, it may be hard to sift through ...--Schwindtd (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
If other editors think he has "a stench", that's irrelevant -- he's one of the most notable scholarly experts on Venezuelan economics. He's amongst the highest-quality of sources on this subject, regardless of certain editors' personal opinions of him. As far as the work in question being "opinion analysis", I don't know what you mean. The vast majority of that paper is simply analysis of economic statistics. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, the "stench" thing was a joke. I was referencing the fights at Hugo Chavez over Weisbrot. Perhaps "opinion analysis" was not the right choice of words. Let me just say that I believe that Weisbrot (and any other study) should be taken with a grain of salt. As I said, there seems to be a muddle of stats and I personally cannot discern which ones are correct. I just urge caution, that's all.--Schwindtd (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Got it -- I didn't understand that you were joking. I agree that everything on a controversial subject such as this should be taken with many grains of salt. Sorry about the misunderstanding. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti chavez sources

I am worried by the amount of information here which is cited only from openly (and virulently) anti-Chavez periodicals like Noticias and El Nacional. What are our opinions on this? ValenShephard (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

First off, reliability depends on context. You don't generally make blanket statements about whether a certain source is reliable (although in some cases, like your next door neighbor's Blogspot page, you can). In addition to the quality of the source overall, you determine reliability based on the article it's being used in, the assertion it's backing, and what other sources are there and what they say. However, the papers you listed, although they regularly take things out of context and lie, are generally considered reliable sources, and can be usually be used. But we should deal with determining when they should and shouldn't be used on a case-by-case basis. Some things we can't do, however, are to present their opinions as fact, or exclude any sources that don't agree with their point of view. Every source is biased in some way, and the viewpoints in corporate papers, which are clearly opposed to Chavez and pushing the agenda of their shareholders and advertising clients, can be used just like any other biased source. They just need to be balanced out with other significant viewpoints. We don't judge reliability based on bias. We base it on the criteria laid out in WP:RS. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, thats basically what I wanted to know. I would prefer more academic sources though, like the CEPR source you found. ValenShephard (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Academic sources are ideal, but there are quite a few important topics that are not yet covered in the scholarly literature -- especially since we are dealing with current events. In cases where important information cannot be found in academic sources, we can then look to news and web sources (as long as they satisfy the criteria in WP:RS). And by the way, if you ever need access to any journal articles, I've got access to many journals via my university, and would gladly email you anything you would like to read. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Does either of you know to what book the Simon and Schuster cite refers to? or to what work the McCaughan cite refers to? --Schwindtd (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some sources also sound illegitimate. For example "treehugger.com"? I think the problem with this article's cites is not just anti-chavez bias, but just plain WP:RS issues. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you spot any else? ValenShephard (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Ref 37- it links to a sketchy website which has a link to a report. The report is in spanish so I will have to take a look at it later to figure out if that report backs up the material. This page's cites are a mess! --Schwindtd (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, you are correct. The mailing list archive should not be cited. We should directly cite the report itself, which is reliable: [1] -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Schwindtd -- Treehugger would be borderline in an environmental article, but here is definitely not appropriate. Over at Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government, I've already replaced that source with these two:
  • Carlos Chirinos (August 23, 2008). "¿Partió el tren del Sur?". BBC Mundo (in Spanish).
  • "Argentina inicia conversaciones con Venezuela por el "Expreso del Sur". EmpresasNews.com (in Spanish). 8/22/2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
...which is what we should do here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I know that you use exlusively cite templates, so I might change them once you add them to fit the current style. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I wouldn't mind doing whatever style you choose, if you'll take care of cleaning up the current mess :) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Will do! But do you know anything about what book the Simon and Schuster cite refers to? or to what work the McCaughan cite refers to? --Schwindtd (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
McCaughan seems to refer to -- Michael McCaughan, The Battle of Venezuela, London, 2004. -- See "Sources" section above references. (However, the sources section should integrated into the references section using the refs= parameter for the {{reflist}} template.) ... I don't know what "Simon and Schuster" refers to, but wouldn't be surprised if it's this: [2] - Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I did not see that part. Well, I added the full information anyways, so can I just remove those from the source list b/c they are already included in the reflist?--Schwindtd (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am very concerned about the spanish sources. I have tagged them with the appropriate (in Spanish), but I am concerned that if a user wanted to look at the original to gather information it would be very difficult because they might not speak spanish. Since this is the english wikipedia, shouldn't we try and cut down on the spanish sources in order to make the originals more accessible to the average user?--Schwindtd (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes and additions

Reverted some recent changes and additions. The changes are, I think simply for the worse, in terms of style and WP:NPOV. The additions are problematic and need discussing, eg the human capital bit is based on a single editorial, which is generally problematic in terms of reliable sourcing, and the land reform bit based on another single source, when land reform is already covered elsewhere here (cf Agriculture in Venezuela, which perhaps needs integrating here), and this all needs treating together seriously and neutrally as a topic, not as a WP:COATRACK. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't put the part about emigration back with just an editorial as the source.
Since land redistribution is one of Chavez's biggest policies, it should be mentioned in this article, although without that quote, which I now realize was out of context.
I am the person who wrote 100% of the part about price controls on food when it was in the Hugo Chavez article. But when the section on his economic policies was erased from that article, and moved to this article, whoever moved it "forgot" to include the part about price controls on food. Now every time I try to accurately and clearly explain that part in this article, someone else keeps removing important parts, watering down the rest, rewriting it in a way that's harder to understand, and putting all that remains together into one way too long paragraph that is hard to read.
The truth of the matter is that this subject can be narrowed down to a few simple facts: Chavez set price caps on food. Like all price caps on food, these ones caused shortages and hoarding. Chavez sent in the military to seize some of the food that was being hoarded. Food producers claimed that the price controls were forcing them to sell food at a loss. And that's it. It's very simple. And it's what's in the sources.
Grundle2600 (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Moving on from the price control thing (I hope this is sorted now, 99% of it was sorted long ago), yes the land reform needs more coverage, but I think that should be developed at Agriculture in Venezuela and related articles, unless or until we have sources showing an economic impact from that. Disembrangler (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your changing of the wording to "in hope of government action to revise regulated prices upwards." It's so much more specific than just saying "in hope of government action."
The source at the end of the paragraph refers to "business leaders and food producers." I think the article should use those words at the end of the paragraph.
Land redistribution is a major part of Chavez's policies, and this Washington Post article is the best article on the subject that I have ever read. It should be mentioned in this article.
Chavez's use of the military to seize food from sellers who were trying to illegally take it across the border to sell for a higher price is notable. The fact that he used the military, instead of the civilian police, is notable.
That would be as a result of the State / Federal split of powers in Venezuela. Police are State and/or Municipal, Army is Federal. Chavez only has direct control on the federal bodies (recently a national police force was inaugurated, much higher paid and they get university training which was developed with assistance from the UK based on north ireland experiences) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.159.213 (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the one big paragraph should be broken into several smaller ones.
Grundle2600 (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The military and smuggling is already referenced, and it's not notable for a country to use military to police its border. I'm fine with the Post article being one of several sources; but for now Agriculture in Venezuela should be expanded. (there is no deadline - summarise here when there's something to say about economic impact). "Business leaders and food producers" is much less clear. Breaking up the paragraph - well it is long, but I can't see how to break it because it's all closely linked. Possibly the Polar example could be cut down to a long sentence (it's fully covered in the Polar article). Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Inflation

I think we should add some context to the inflation because alone it does sound terrible. We need to say that because of the governments surplus there is always a buffer and it can be managed to a certain degree, that it has dropped to under 30% as in the CEPR source and that inflation is strongly linked to the oil industry. ValenShephard (talk) 01:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and add the stats, but please cite them properly. The cites on this page are a nightmare! --Schwindtd (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I will add that to the lead when I have time and energy, based on the source Jr introduced. It looks like a good one, and very up to date, from this month in fact, and its a summary of economic performace for the past like 7 years. ValenShephard (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a great resource, but make sure you don't rely on it exclusively. There are many other sources out there discussing relatively current economic information, some of which conflict with Weisbrot's analysis. Be sure to include those as well, making sure to present them in a neutral manner. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll try. But I've seen so many single sources overrepresented that it makes you want to be sick. One source at revolution will not be televised is used to construct a whole and elaborat critism of the film for example. Nevermind. Do you have any other sources for the inflation issue? ValenShephard (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to comment that the future projections by IMF on venezuela inflation (2009+ in the imf table linked on the Vz economy page in wiki) contradict every other source (eg CIA factbook), and are getting more out of whack every year (wrong by a margin of 9% last year, and 17% wrongness this year) and just so happen to increase by EXACTLY 3.000% per year, every year from 2010 - 2014. I checked other latin countries (Colombia and Brazil) in their database and all projections there seem to be calculated to 4 decimal points, with inflation going up or down by margins also calculated to 4 decimals. It seems very plausible that IMF projections on Venezuela are distorted for propaganda purposes. I'm much more inclined to trust the CIA figures here as they seem to match other sources. Anyone have information on how IMF makes it's predictions? Here's a link citing the CIA's figures up to 2010: http://www.indexmundi.com/venezuela/inflation_rate_%28consumer_prices%29.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.159.213 (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The links to CEPR are not neutral since most of his work is paid for by VIO (Venezuela information office) an organization paid by the venezuelan government. Also gregory wilpert is married to venezuelan consul in new york. I think more stats-and-numbers-type pages should be included such as mf.gov.ve (finance ministry) or an international organization such as UN.

Also most of the article stops at 2007 where venezuela started going down. Most of the article seems to me like a chavista propaganda. I recommend reading this paper by Francisco Rodriguez which debunks a lot of myths of the chavista propaganda run by Weisbrot et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnetremula (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am always thrilled to hear a new voice (especially one who already has evidence in hand, so to speak.) I assure you that we will get on it right away. As you can tell, this page has been neglected for far too long. Feel free to add sources, statistic information, or correct wording to better reflect WP:NPOV. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
That is very diplomatic of you Schwindtd but I would push our new friend to give us reliable sources to back up his strong concepts. ValenShephard (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Well of course! I am currently looking at the Rodriguez paper. It will take some time to sort through. Rodriguez is an assistant professor of economics at Wesleyan university, though. So there is credibility there. I will have to delve into the article to see what is going on. Thanks for the warning, though. --Schwindtd (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Rodriguez paper -- it was full of factual inaccuracies and doctored statistics, with twisted definitions created in the manner of Pearson's Washington Post article. Here is an interchange between Weisbrot and Rodriguez:

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

ValenShephard I have this link that is Venezuela official gazette (where every law and decree is published in Venezuela) where Gregory Wilpert wife is named New York Consul. Weisbrot is clearly identified by the Chavez and movement he has written not only several prochavez op-eds but he even wrote a movie directed by Oliver Stone that was very sympathetic with Chavez. We could argue for days who is wrong or right. And since most economic papers about are somehow biased, I suggest linking only to stats and facts pages. And the thing about 2007 and forward you can see it for yourself google venezuela 2009 economy you'll even get ministers saying there is a strong recession and chavez saying that the gdp measurement is useless. Here is a link to cepal (UN economy study center for latin america) talking about venezuela 2009 economy and about social indicators. I will quote something out of the second study from cepal about indigence and poverty "Also worthy of mention is the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, whose above-average deterioration stems primarily from the shrinking purchasing power of salaries." You can also read IMF report Carnetremula (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that people are so critical of Weisbrot or other authors writing pro-Chavez op-eds, but don't seem at all critical of the Economist or NY Times which have published hundreds of anti-Chavez op-eds. I guess an author's bias is only acceptable if it's anti-Chavez bias, correct? Every author is biased -- and as institutions, the New York Times and Economist are biased in favor of their shareholders and advertising clients. Their (m/b)illionaire shareholders (obviously) think that wealth redistribution is evil, and so the newspapers report that Chavez is evil like they are told. One might also say that Weisbrot is "biased" in favor of Chavez -- more accurately, he thinks that what MVR has accomplished is good overall, and he says so -- with data to back it up. Both viewpoints are relevant, and from reliable sources, and we should mention them both (except where they are clearly lying). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv Do you think the external link section is balanced to both points of view ? There are 7 links. 2 are official sources, 1 is a simple story and the other 4 are by Weisbrot and Wilpert. Do you think Wilpert's independence is clear when he is married to a Venezuela Government Agent (in a position named by the president or a minister) ? Carnetremula (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
(Note: as far as the External links section, and the rest of this article for that matter -- it's garbage. This article needs a ton of cleanup and rewriting. Short answer, no, I don't think this article is accurate or neutral yet, and I believe it needs a lot of work) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Do you think that the New York Times can be independent when it is owned by multimillionaires with a vested interest in the current economic system being maintained, and which derives the majority of it's profits from corporate advertising clients? Do you think that the authors that write in these papers do not have political beliefs? Again, all sources are biased. Why is it that neo-liberal, pro-American, pro-corporate, anti-Chavez bias is acceptable, while authors who are support Chavez' policies are not? And what's the problem with being married to a Venezuelan government official? If anything, that would make it more likely that you know what you're talking about. Why don't you apply your own standards to the U.S. government? Would you have a problem citing Condoleeza Rice or Hillary Clinton on foreign policy? How come everyone who is tangentially related to the Venezuelan government is obviously a propaganda tool of Chavez, while the Council on Foreign Relations or people who work for the U.S. government are reliable sources? Please, explain this to me. It comes up a lot, and I'd love to hear the reasoning behind it.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think NYT is far more independent that Greg Wilpert page. For once NYT has an ethics code published. Also NYT editors and staff way of living is not tied to prochavez or antichavez position. The fact is I never quoted NYT. I have never said that pro american, pro corporate is good. I don't like biases (specially heavy biases like Weisbrot and Wilperts). I live in Venezuela, I can tell you that all the top positions at Venezuela government are extremely loyal to Chavez and will do a lot of propaganda. I have never in my life quoted an US Goverment official. I really don't like Condoleeza Rice or Mrs Clinton. My knowledge of US politics is very basic. Mrs. Wilpert is not tangetially related, she is fully involved. She is not a carreer official her position is a political one, most probably she was picked by Mr. Bernardo Alvarez, Mr. Nicolas Maduro or President Chavez. Have you ever seen what happens to officials that in some way disgress even a bit from Chavez opinion? Most likely they would be dismissed inmediately, sometimes even charged of wrongdoing and put into jail. You ask me to apply the same standard to the US government; the thing is I can't, both governments are way to different. US Government can have its problems, there may be corruption, there may be conflict of interest but there are also checks and balance (some at least). Venezuela national assembly 100% chavista, exceutive branch 100% chavista, prosecutor chavista, electoral council 4 out of 5 chavista, supreme court at least 90% chavista, ombudsman chavista. So no, no check and balances, not even fake ones. Carnetremula (talk) 04:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Responding to all of your incorrect original research (for instance, it is demonstrably false that the National Assembly is "100% Chavista" ... and the New York Times is independent because it published an ethics code?!?!) would take too much time, and it's not relevant here anyway. Basically, you are saying that because you don't agree with the Venezuelan government's policies or the way the government is structured, that we shouldn't use people associated with it as a source. But I am having trouble determining how this is supported by WP:RS. Find me something that says that "If Carnetremula disapproves of a government, people who are married to people who work for that government cannot be used as reliable sources." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Noam Chomsky in his writings on US foreign policy and the media cites examples of bias and fabricated stories within media including the New York Times.121.44.159.213 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's contradictory to consider that Wilpert is biased because of his wife while recommending a paper written by the son of Gumersindo Rodríguez, a Carlos Andrés Pérez minister. JRSP (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention that Rodriguez actually worked for the Venezuelan government at one point, so he's even more of an "agent" than Wilpert, who is only married to an "agent of the Government". :)-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not recommended Rodriguez paper for the encyclopedia article. I recommended it to disprove most of Weisbrot propaganda (as a reason to erase those external links). I did recommend facts and statistics pages, like CEPAL or IMF report or even the MF.Carnetremula (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
First off, Rodriguez' paper was a very poor choice for your stated purpose. It disproved nothing other than the claim that Rodriguez can objectively, honestly. and accurately analyze the economy of Venezuela. Second, please see WP:PRIMARY as far as directly using econometric data in the article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Jr hit the nail on the head when he said that people find it so unacceptable and horrendously bias when someone writes a sympathetic piece on Chavez, but perfectly natural and correct when someone writes a (usually much more virulent) piece against Chavez. Rodriguez has many more personal reasons to have a strong bias and POV, seeing as he was kicked out of the Chavez government.. Jrtaylor's links have basically shown that the Rodriguez paper was a flawed and intentionally misleading paper, that almost totally discounts it. By the way, I don't think the IMF is a very good source for this article either. They have routinely underestimated the performance of the Venezuelan economy and predicted its collapse on many occasions only to be made to look like fools. That may have something to do with the fact that Chavez fobbed them off and refused their authority and any future 'aid'. ValenShephard (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Please see my comment under 'inflation' above regarding the dubious IMF projection data for 2009+. I wouldn't trust their 'Analysis' 121.44.159.213 (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I remind all concerned that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages, and to please refrain from using terms like "propaganda" when attributed to individuals (at least unless making a detailed argument about specifics of particular work - and damning by association with others is not sufficient). Beyond that, AFAIK Mark Weisbrot was merely an adviser on South of the Border in the capacity of an expert on various pink tide governments; nor is there any evidence of any of his work being funded by the Venezuelan government. Please refrain from making such accusations without WP:RS sourcing. Finally, this is teetering a bit on the edge of WP:NOTFORUM territory - keep focussed on the article. Rd232 talk 09:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232. This section is getting out of line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwindtd (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add the Wilpert external link as something to be changed. The citation lists Islamonline.net as the publishing organization. Is that really the best we can do? Can we really not find Wilpert's article in some other place? I just don't think "islamonline.net" is a very legitimate organization to cite. Isn't this article published somewhere else?--Schwindtd (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that a religious source? Why would it be published there? Try and find it somewhere else, and if you simply can't it could be a dud. ValenShephard (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Can't find the same article on another cite. Will keep looking, though. --Schwindtd (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A query

I'm concerned that this got removed with the edit summary "One sided viewpoint and dead link", which is odd, as the link works and the FT is surely an independent reliable source. Was there some other reason for removing it? bobrayner (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think the lede needs "a broader explanation of why currency controls were imposed initially" I'd be happy to add more; deleting sourced content about the currency controls seems to be a counterproductive approach. bobrayner (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm new to this page, more interested in gaining a perspective on Venezuela than doing the thick of editing ( a scary thing to do at best ! ). I have no understanding of any history or motives behind that removal. However, I would have thought that prefacing that link with "there's a claim that blah-blah-blah" rather than claiming to actually be the case would be acceptable. I don't understand why some see Wikipedia as trying to establish the truth, and filtering claims, as compared to outlining the different viewpoints in what is an inherently controversial area. Happy to listen ! JohnAugust (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Good Article, but there's hardly a mention about the Co-Ops!

The administration created a whole ministry to see to it that workers owned and managed enterprises become a leading competitor to privately owned capitalist industries. I believe the nationalization of some of the supermarket chains were due to combating the speculation of food prices and to give them to the workers. There is a lot going on in Venezuela that should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.220.186 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point. I wonder if anyone has identified and measured an "economic benefit" resulting from co-ops and various other progressive policies. I see other perspectives elsewhere on this talk page. Interesting ! Look - maybe the economy has other problems. But it seems a good idea to put such a view "on the table" as part of the mix. JohnAugust (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Wonder if anyone has tried to measure the "productivity" of a firm ( or even sector of industry ) in Venezuela which is dominated by co-operatives, as compared to "regular" firms and sectors in other nations. Some say that there is a lack of private innovation in Venezuela. That may well be true ... but there may be compensating "dividends" resulting from the co-operative appoach.JohnAugust (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Poverty

Re this text added to Hugo Chavez

According to the United Nations, poverty has been nearly halved since Chávez took office, from 48.1% in 1997 to 28.5% in 2007, while extreme poverty has been reduced from 19,2% in 1997 to 8.5% in 2007.[unbalanced opinion?][1]

see [discussion here]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good idea to put all the facets on the table at once - inflation vs. reduction in poverty ( and also history of inflation, too, as others have put forward). JohnAugust (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
User:SandyGeorgia fair point. I'd approve of some sort of rider being put in after the claim, like "however, others (references) have criticised the ability of the UN to derive credible figures" - I do not necessarily embrace your overall position, but recognise the validity of putting the concerns in the article. PS. Where did everybody go ??? JohnAugust (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://websie.eclac.cl/anuario_estadistico/anuario_2008/eng/index.asp

Wall Street Journal

When did the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation become "extreme right-wing sources" that must be censored? This constant censorship of articles around Venezuela's economy & governance is quite problematic. bobrayner (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree ! Agree ! JohnAugust (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Some data should be added

Some older data from 1980s should be added, if found. While reduction of poverty under Chavez is obvious if you take 1998 as the base year, for the Venezuela's general trend you need to compare it with the situation in 1980s to get the grasp how (bad) things are actually.

″Poverty in Venezuela increased during the 1980s and 1990s but has decreased during the Chávez presidency″ would need to be reworded. Poverty on the best Chavez year was still a bit over the rate in 1989 and I guess 1989 was like the worst years of 1980s.

″In relation to hunger, under-nutrition was lowered drastically from its 1998-2000 level of 21% to its 2005-2007 level of 6%.″ As for this, a website claims that 8% for 2010 [3] was the best the country has ever achieved. We need confirmation here. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Recentism

This article is obviously suffering from "recentism." The 2013-present section alone appears to be already larger than the combined sections representing the 20's through the 90's, while many of the non-timeline sections devote only drive-by sentences referencing information from before 1999 while extensively exploring post-1999 conditions. The lead also reflects this. The 1999 to now sections likely need some extensive trimming.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we create an "Economic policy of Nicolas Maduro" article so this data will not be lost? As recent as it may be, the data is vital for those seeking information about Venezuela's current economy.--Zfigueroa (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that would be helpful; it becomes difficult to manage, and most people searching for "Economy of Venezuela" will be interested in recent events. I think it would be better to expand some of the earlier history instead. bobrayner (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC862%7cVenezuela&source=1%7CITC) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Venezuela. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Venezuela by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Go ahead! bobrayner (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reccomendations

There are a few things I would like to recommend for this article:

  • Better sources for all information that is sourced by Venezuelanalysis. I have gone through the article and tagged all information that is sourced by Venezuelanalysis as needing a better source. I did not remove the material since it can most likely be found by a more reliable and neutral source. There is not much that needs to be replaced so this should not be too much of an effort.
  • The summarization of the "2013 - present" section. The article has been tagged as slanted toward recent events recently and the section has also been tagged. I will add a link to the Economic policy of the Nicolás Maduro government for the section. This will take some work since information must be carefully chosen to represent the recent state of the Venezuelan economy.

Any other recommendations are appreciated!--ZiaLater (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that Venezuelan Analisis is not a reliable source, they have news and analysis by scholars and people from around the world and the fact that someone doesn't share their opinion doesn't mean that it is unreliable. But if that was the case you would need to remove most of the statements or viewpoints of that section, because most of the sources are right wing conservative or libertarian think tanks, like the misery index by Cato Institute, the Heritage Fund conclusions, etc.
By the way, who cares what Coca Cola or Ford thinks? Is it relevant and unbiased? All the opinions of big corporations are biased and irrelevant, because they have vested interests so they favor by a free market economy. I added a Neutrality tag to that section, because it lacks from viewpoints other than pro free market, anti socialist sources.
--Mythdestroyer 23:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I will work on this. Specific articles were made for such occurrences and some of the information on here is not needed anymore and can be summarized.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Economy of Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Social Development Section

As you can see in the history of this page, it states that Materialscientist assisted by Citation bot r394 moved a section from the Venezuela Wikipedia page. The original section of "Social Development" on the Venezuela page was my original entry. The section the two Wikipedia users moved onto this page is also my material, and I want it to be known that I contributed and wrote the moved section on this page. Stnicks007 (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)Stnicks007

Review and Suggestions

This was a very good addition to this article! In order to assess a country's economy, we definitely have to focus on the changes and developments being made within the economy, especially in places that are currently in development such as Venezuela. Since this section is mainly statistics, I don't feel like there is much that needs to be changed. If I did have to say one small thing, I would say that some of the things being said in the introduction to this section are repeated almost exactly when you introduce the Millennium Development Goals. For example, you state in the introduction to this section: "Venezuela has been able to make substantial progress in all of the goals and will reach all of the Millennium Development Goals by the 2015 deadline." You then go on to mention in the introduction of the MDG subsection "Venezuela has made substantial progress in relation to the Millennium Development Goals...Venezuela is on target to meet all of the Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015." This is not really a huge issue, but I feel like you can be less specific in the introduction to the section, and then more specific when you bring this up in the actual subsection for the MDGs, so that you won't be redundant. But honestly, like I said, that's a very minor edit, and it's not 100% necessary, just a slight change that could make a slight difference. Overall, though, this is great! Great way to bring in all of this information! Natashacruz12 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Natasha! I agree with you that some of what I say can be very repetitive so I will edit the redundancy. I feel like for this topic I do not have much of an issue with bias because I am only reporting statistics and data on Venezuela's progress of the Millennium Development Goals. Thanks again. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Stnicks007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

Suggestions to the Social Development Section

This is a very good edit. It is easy to understand and clearly shows evidence supporting how much Venezuela has changed and developed. The only suggestion I can think of to improve the article would be to explain, or give theories about, how or why Venezuela has achieved such progress. However, like another user noted, the main focus of the development section is to give statistical evidence of Venezuela's improvements.Maybe a link to a page explaining Venezuelan social policies would clarify this. I also do not really understand why the social development section belongs in the Economy of Venezuela page instead of the Venezuela page. The page contains no words or explanation linking social development to the economy so I feel like the section is misplaced, but since this information was moved to this section by someone other than its original creator this is understandable. This section is definitely suitable as an encyclopedia article.Kristianedosomwan5 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Kristian, many people have brought up your suggestion. I tried to find some specific government programs that Venezuela has implemented to achieve some of the MDGs. I will also work on linking this page more to other Wikipedia pages. One thing I have to do is get a link to this page, "Economy of Venezuela," from the "Venezuela" page. Thank you very much! If you have any more suggestions, please let me know! Stnicks007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC).

Suggestions to Section

I think there is a lot of value to adding the Millennium Goals to track the development of Venezuela's progress on the social development front. However, I agree with what was said before in that the social development section may not be the most suitable in the economy of Venezuela page. Perhaps it would be helpful to create a separate article titled Social Development of Venezuela, or tie the social developments to economical outcomes. Furthermore, because some goals are broken down into sub-components to it, perhaps it would be beneficial to include exactly how Venezuela is contributing to each sub-goal, instead of grouping all the information together. That way, it may be easier for readers to identify what actions relate to what subgoals. Other than that, I think you have very solid statistics and your writing style fits the encyclopedic style that Wikipedia is looking for. Great job! AlisaYu (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your suggestion! I have been struggling with where to place this information. At first, I did want to create a new page, "Social Development of Venezuela," but was worried that it would be taken down because it is too specific of a topic. I then decided to post a section titled "Social Development" on the "Venezuela" page. However, when I did that, two users moved my section to this page. As of now, I am fine with having my "Social Development" section on this page. I will work on your suggestions. If you have any more, please let me know! Thanks! Stnicks007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC).
This section clearly does not belong in this article. Unless someone can explain otherwise I will be deleting it in the near future. Hammersbach (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Social Development section

I have read this section several times now and can see no coherent reason why it has been placed in this article. Unless someone can provide a cogent argument otherwise I will delete it in the extreme near future. Hammersbach (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree and will summarise or remove most of this. The Millenium goals were often used by the Bolivarian government to boast about the development that occurred when they had oil money. Unfortunately, much has changed since then.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Economy of Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Economy of Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

update and rewrite

update and rewrite this please

This article covers an important and controversial topic and badly needs a rewrite because of recent developments --Alan 09:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs citations to correct a lot of weaselly phrasing Gigs 18:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, it glorifies the venezuelan economy vastly. It's almost laughable. Venezuela has the second largest inflation in the world after Zimbawe and their currency recently dropped 3 ceros as a "make-over" thought up by Hugo Chavez - (eticacero) 10:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.110.55 (talk)

So, Venezuela was better of with the 60-100% inflation of the pre-Chavez era? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.159.213 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Much better. Brayrobert201 (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Ease of doing business index

This orwellian euphemism I think should be removed. It basically means "how easy is it for rich outsiders to bend the economy of this nation over". Its very bias; state focused (officially) economies will also be ranked low. But the ranking is a very controversial thing, its very objective. Like nationalisations. To some people its great, to others its bad. Same thing here. ValenShephard (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Wow the Chavez groupies are out in full force. Ease of doing business means where investors with capital can invest invest their capital. Why do you think Cuba is so poor and Singapore and Hong Kong are so rich among all income classes? Venezuela's economy is a joke and the 30% inflation shows it. More attention needs to be paid to the fact that Venezuela has debased it's currency and that it blames inflation on "speculators" and not the printing press. This article is a joke and is so in favour of him that it is sickening. YOu need people to invest in your country for capital formation to occur. You are obviously an economic illiterate if you think otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, things were much better with capitalist inflation rates of 60% - 100% per annum, in the good old days pre-Chavez 121.44.159.213 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I just saw this comment and had to laugh... A sad laugh, but a laugh nonetheless,

Brayrobert201 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The sidebar in this article states that GDP growth is -14%, but when I had a look at the source, not only was the 2017 data IMF estimates, but also under the column GDP growth it says -7.4 %

idk if I'm looking at the wrong thing, what's going on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theo ducos (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Economic history

One should write something about the devopments before Chavez came to power. Mr. Illarionov's citation suggests there is much to think about and much to discuss.Constanz - Talk 11:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen, brother!! The world authority on GDP per capita of nations, measured in US$, is Prof. Angus Maddison at the University off Groningen in the Netherlands. The web database of his research centre reports two calculations of the per capita GDP of Venezuela in US$ at constant prices. One calculation shows no growth between 1955 and 2005. The other shows no growth betweeen 1947 and 2003 (the last year for which data are available). At the end of WWII, Venezuela enjoyed the highest standard of living in Latin America, and perhaps in all of the Third World. But since then, any economic gains have been erased by subsequent economic declines. It appears that Venezuela has been incapable of investing its oil wealth in ways that grow its economy at a rate higher than population increase. It also appears that the Venezuelan public sector is the first entity to get its hands on any oil export revenue.
So while the rest of humanity advanced, Venezuela stood still. I submit that this long term stagnation is:
  • Unique among nations outside of sub-Saharan Africa (the latter nations are all far poorer than Venezuela, with serious education and public health shortcomings);
  • The root cause of Chavez's demagogery and of the political turmoil afflicting Venezuela in recent years;
  • A good example of how the easy wealth of oil is a curse as well as a blessing.
It is surely true that Venezuela has done well by the current very high price of oil. But the question posed by the data I've just mentioned remains: will this latest growth spurt prove any less ephemeral than previous growth episodes since WWII?123.255.60.35 (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is extremely one-sided POV. There are funny sentences like "Some state that neoliberalism was the cause of Venezuelan economic difficulties, though overreliance on oil prices and a fractured political system without parties agreeing on policies caused many of the problem". Also by the time we reach Chavez-era the only thing mentioned is inflation rate! We forget about all the other indexes... It's ridiculous, it's like the article is written by FOX news, Bolton or Pompeo... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypovoleas (talk • contribs) 08:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Inflation

Under inflation, the infobox indicates an IMF estimate of about 65% for 2018. This is low compared to the Venezuelan Central Bank, the AN estimate and the numbers published in Hyperinflation in Venezuela, somebody please check.--MaoGo (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: There is a comma after the 65 which means that it is 65 thousand percent. KREOH (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@KREOH: oh thanks my bad. Anyway, it still low compared to earlier IMF estimates and both national estimates (central bank and opposition parliament). --MaoGo (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Useful information in Spanish Wikipedia

The article for Economy in Venezuela in the Spanish Wikipedia has a couple tables with a lot of information that would really help this article out. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Econom%C3%ADa_de_Venezuela (72.181.194.88 17:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)) https://explorer.aapg.org/story/articleid/42735/sowing-the-oil-a-little-known-venezuelan-oil-industry-initiative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.26.112 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I can help translating if needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Broken references

Some text in this article was apparently copied from other Wikipedia articles, so it includes several broken references. These references should be repaired, if possible. Jarble (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yopienso: This article has an {{error}} template message. Are there still any citation errors in this article? Jarble (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Looks like the IP cleaned them up. Too bad they didn't make edit summaries. Good work, though. I'll remove the notice. YoPienso (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

History section is long

I have some concerns about the article. Check the history section now and the history section a few months ago: [4]]. The current version is much longer. Much of the content seems ok (I have not read it entirely), but most is done by an anonymous user and sometimes it has raised copyrights concerns (see deleted editions of 27 November 2019). Can somebody check it out? Also we have a recently created article called Economic history of Venezuela, maybe some of the content here should be moved there.--MaoGo (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Also the article is almost WP:TOOBIG!--MaoGo (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=Gb0XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&hl=es&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4280:480:F191:2D7A:2E5D:3DE9 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user, I cannot tell if you are implying that the recently added text was copied from that book or you are just suggesting that we add more from that source. Which is it?--MaoGo (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted the article to the edit linked above (which I found independently). Every single substantial edit I've checked by this anon has been a copyright violation, and their edits are highly untrustworthy. I've also blocked them. Graham87 07:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
The history section now needs information about the pre-1922 history of Venezuela, including the Guipuzcoan Company and the economy before the oil discovery. However, I'm confident that this content can be copied from other articles, briefly and with the proper attribution. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
As Jamez42 previously remarked, the economic history should go back to independence. I added an Expand section banner. BFG (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Venezuela is not a "mixed market" economy, as asserted

The article begins: "The economy of Venezuela is a market-based mixed economy based largely on the petroleum and manufacturing sectors."

Although the assertion cites a State Department backgrounder which is rather vague about the country's economics, even it refers to more evidence that it is a socialist economy than a "mixed market" one. I will address this first. The first evidence for this is given in the section U.S.-VENEZUELA RELATIONS, which includes the following:

″Venezuela’s recent presidents, the late Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) and Nicolas Maduro (2013-present), have defined themselves in part through their opposition to the United States, regularly criticizing the U.S. government, its policies, and its relations with Latin America. President Maduro has also continued his predecessor’s policies, notably what the Venezuelan government refers to as "21st Century Socialism," which is characterized by an outsized role for the executive, extensive state intervention in the economy, and efforts to expand Venezuelan economic and political influence among nations in Latin America and the Caribbean.″

These are traditional Soviet-style policies based upon Marxist-Leninist theory interpreted through the Cold War division between "capitalist" and "communist" countries (opposition to the US, powerful executive, extensive intervention in the economy, expansion of its system to other countries); and, as indicated, the government calls its own system (21st Century) Socialism. The State Department article goes on later to spell out some of the socialist interventions into the economy, which again are consistent with a socialist, not a "mixed market" economy. The "state intervention in the economy" includes:

″expropriations, macroeconomic distortions, physical insecurity, corruption, and a volatile regulatory framework make Venezuela a challenging climate for U.S. and multinational companies. A complex foreign exchange regime and restricted access to dollars have prevented firms from repatriating their earnings out of Venezuela and importing industrial inputs and finished goods into Venezuela. Extremely limited access to dollars, price controls, and rigid labor regulations have compelled many U.S. and multinational firms to reduce or shut down their Venezuelan operations.″

These may not amount to completely planned economy, but they do add up to something much closer to Soviet-style socialism than to a mixed market economy. Although "corruption, and a volatile regulatory framework" may be interpreted in different ways, depending upon the system's constitution, who holds the power over the regulations (Party, State, or private interests such as lobbyists or businesses), who interprets their actions as corrupt (and why) rather than exercise of power over those regulations (again, the constitution and laws in question are relevant to this issue).

But this State Department article does not focus on the economic system of governance, but rather the bilateral relationship between Venezuela and the United States - it is not a good source for answring this question.

Although there is a strong case to be made that, one way or another, Venezuela might fall to the Resource Curse, the change in the economic system certainly contributed to the Crisis in Venezuela and came from one wing of the left "represented by Chavez and his party PSUV, self-defined as Marxist-Leninist, openly associated with Fidel Castro."[1]

All around the world, this move to socialism was celebrated by left-leaning and Marxist thought leaders. Many of these same thought leaders deflect from the idea that it is a socialist country today, but at its inception, they celebrated the new experiment with this economic system. For example, ″On Venezuela, what you’re likelier to read is that the crisis is the product of corruption, cronyism, populism, authoritarianism, resource-dependency, U.S. sanctions and trickery, even the residues of capitalism itself. ... Curiously, that’s not how the Venezuelan regime’s admirers used to speak of “21st century socialism,” as it was dubbed by Hugo Chávez. The late Venezuelan president, said Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn, “showed us there is a different and a better way of doing things. It’s called socialism, it’s called social justice, and it’s something that Venezuela has made a big step toward.” Noam Chomsky was similarly enthusiastic when he praised Chávez in 2009. “What’s so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela,” the linguist said, is that “I can see how a better world is being created and can speak to the person who’s inspired it.”″[2]

It can be argued that the Crisis was caused by socialist policies: everything from shortages to the rampant corruption emerged as a result of the policies of the new system introduced by Chávez.

″Many in the media have blamed Venezuela’s worsening humanitarian crisis on corruption, mismanagement, falling oil prices, or U.S sanctions—anything but the rise of socialism in what was once the wealthiest country in South America. Yet corruption and mismanagement were the direct result of increased government control of the economy—socialism—and in reality, lower oil prices and U.S. sanctions have little to do with the crisis. Instead, the mass starvation and exodus faced by Venezuelans are the natural consequence of the socialist policies implemented by dictators Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro.″[3]

There are indeed similarities and past precedents to look to for support for this position. As throughout the Cold War, this has been a disputed topic, with others blaming currency mismanagement, the price of oil, sanctions, and other factors - although even in that story, price controls and subsidies (which were extreme and apparently rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology) play a key role:

″Many businesses and individuals were also willing to pay a premium to circumvent controls, either to avoid bureaucratic trade barriers or to safeguard the value of their capital, and a currency black market sprang up to cater for this demand. Where black-market dollars became part of the cost structure of basic goods, the profit margin between the cost of production and state-controlled prices narrowed or disappeared entirely, causing further damage to local production. Beyond undermining local businesses, these policies also created opportunities and incentives for corruption, which grew in attractiveness in step with economic distortions, creating a vicious cycle.″[4]

Although the cause of the crisis may be in some dispute, the idea that Venezuela has a "mixed market" economy should not be disputed but recognized as outright false. It should be labeled as socialism of some sort, particularly as the government itself celebrates it as "21st Century Socialism" and the significant policy sea-change was based around the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Economi3 (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Debunking a Myth: Hugo Chavez & Venezuelan Socialism". LSE. 18 May 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  2. ^ "Yes, Venezuela Is a Socialist Catastrophe". The New York Times. 25 January 2019. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  3. ^ "How Socialism Destroyed Venezuela". Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 21 March 2019. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
  4. ^ "Is socialism to blame for Venezuela's never-ending crisis?". Al Jazeera. 31 May 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
@Economi3: I went ahead and removed the assertion. Thanks for your input. danielkueh (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Economi3 and Danielkueh, I agree that the given ref didn't support the claim, but how isn't Venezuela a market-based mixed economy, or simply a mixed economy, if you have problem with market-based? It may not be a mixed economy in the sense of blending [...] free markets with state interventionism but may certainly be in the sense of blending elements of market economies with elements of planned economies and private enterprise with public enterprise, for as far as I'm aware neither the market nor private ownership have been abolished; so Venezuela can be considered socialist only in the Austrian sense; in the Austrian sense, the Western world is somewhat socialist too, but they call it mixed economies because they're actually growing and wealthy, so that can't be associated with socialism (which must be associated with failure, genocide and famines), even if they all have many policies that Austrians would consider socialist and which have considered outright socialist when it was about socialist regimes that failed. God forbid calling Venezuela capitalist, capitalist mixed economy or state capitalist, even if it maintains most of capitalist characteristic (private ownership, markets, wage labour, etc.) and simply has a populist or hyper-populist government which claims to be socialist.--Davide King (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
See "Is socialism to blame for Venezuela's never-ending crisis?" by Asa Cusack, an expert on Latin America and frequent contributor to mainstream media.
"First, it is important to realise that Chavez chose to call his transformative project "21st-century socialism", but Venezuela's economy remained market-based and private-sector dominated throughout his time in office.
"Though the social economy and the public sector were heavily promoted - including through nationalisation - the private sector was expected to remain dominant, and it did. A centrally planned socialist economy like Cuba's was neither the aim nor the reality."
The conclusion that Venezuela does not have a capitalist economy has no basis in fact.
TFD (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
At first I thought this was TL;DR, but you got me. While in practice it is true that there still is a private sector, it's also important to not forget the government measures and control. Besides the ones mentioned, I would note price controls. In the last years, this sector has been more and more restricted, which in turn has caused the economy to shrink. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The U.S. had price controls under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, and this approach was quite common in capitalist countries until the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s. If you think there was no difference in the economies of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. in the 1970s, then the Venezuela is a socialist state views makes sense. But in fact, Chavez tried to return to the post war consensus in economics, not to emulate the Soviet Union. Incidentally, oil was nationalized long before the chavistas came to power. TFD (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Price controls of a specific product or that are temporal (let's say, including some of the applied during the current pandemic) should not be mistaken with broad regulations that are a response to, for instance, chronic inflation or shortages. The former can be described as keynesian or social democratic, and it should be mentioned that there were also widely applied during the puntofijismo before Chávez. I don't want to go in depth into economic theory, but my point and what I want to argue is that naming Venezuela as a "mixed economy" probably isn't completely accurate either. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
According to an article in Bloomberg (April 25, 2020), the reason for price controls is to control inflation, which is the same reason other capitalist countries impose price controls.[5] Note that in Communist states, where government owns the means of production and supply, it sets prices in the same way private companies do in capitalist countries. Therefore there is no need for price controls. TFD (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, that's really interesting. Jamez42, how is mixed economy not completely accurate either? Venezuela is neither a free-market capitalist economy nor a centrally planned socialist economy (which is usually what is mean when saying socialist, basically the Soviet Union et all), so it is indeed a mixed economy in this sense (again, you did not disprove that there is still private property, wage labour, markets, etc.). To add what The Four Deuces wrote, even for so-called Communist states there is a debate and the state-capitalist view. Another relevant comment from The Four Deuces:
It seems to be that in the neoliberal era the post-war consensus is socialism (many policies that were normal and that some left-wing social democrats are proposing today are considered far-left, radical, socialist) but also isn't socialism because it was actually the period with the highest growth and less inequality than today (just to clarify, I believe the post-war consensus was still capitalism). So it seems to be that Venezuela is socialist only in the Austrian sense where price controls, central banking, etc. are socialist policies in themselves; or socialist in the sense that since it failed, it was socialist the whole time. Austrians cannot have it both ways, deeming policies common in the capitalist world as socialist but then referring only to socialist regimes as socialist.--Davide King (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Venezuela is not socialist only for these reasons. We have to remember the Bolivarian Missions, which not only expanded measures such as free healthcare and education (which existed in welfare states and already existed before Chávez), but also instituted programs that included free housing owned by the state and land redistribution. The expropiations, which have been characteristic of the Bolivarian Revolution, have already been mentioned, and the state currently has several enterprises of food production and distribution, including Agroisleña, PDVAL and Mission Mercal, just to name some. If I'm not mistaken, this is currently bigger than the private sector. Last but not least, it also also worth mentioning that Chávez promoted communal councils and cooperatives. I beg to differ, but the Venezuelan economy can be described as socialist not only in the Austrian sense of the word. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Davide King: --Jamez42 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy says that we must report the conclusions of experts, not our own based on synthesis. Land redistribution is not uncommon in capitalist countries and ironically was not carried out by Stalinists, who collectivized farming. And even the United States has public housing. And as you pointed out, even in capitalist countries, government subsidizes education and health care. The most you can say is that the chavistas rejected the neo-liberal model and opted for post war consensus economics. Add to that a degree of client politics where wealth is shoveled to their supporters, which again is typical in capitalist countries. TFD (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I was just going to link my answer from your talk page as is long and I do not want to cause disruption by adding it in full here, in addition to ping The Four Deuces and tell you that you can get a better and shorter answer when that is exactly what happened, thank you very much. Anyway, here is the link to the full reply. The Four Deuces, do you think some qualifier about the type of the economy could be added? If so, what qualifier have you found supported in sources? Market-based mixed economy, mixed economy, capitalist economy, what else?--Davide King (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not basing this arguments in a synthesis, but rather just illustrating with some examples. A significant amount of outlets and scholars have referred to Venezuela's economy as "socialist". However, I can understand if there are different interpretations of the situation, where an additional explanation could be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think any reputable sources have called the economy socialist, although they may have called the government and its policies socialist. TFD (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Austrians don't consider price controls to be socialist. Price controls are interventions in the market economy, whereas Austrians typically consider socialism to mean state ownership of the means of production. So public schools would be an example of socialism to an Austrian, but not price controls or tariffs or subsidies or other forms of intervention in the market economy. Central banking would be considered socialist.
On the topic at hand, Ludwig von Mises argued that a key determining factor in deciding whether a nation is socialist or capitalist is the existence of a stock exchange. He was talking about Hungary at the time, but Caracas has a stock exchange. Meistro1 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_Venezuela/Archive_1&oldid=1242751524"