차베스와 마두로의 사회주의 실험이 망친 베네수엘라의 현실을 보여주는 비디오다. 문죄인이 집권하면 우리도 겪을 일이다.
https://youtu.be/THPe3D69vJ0
------------------------------------------------------------
베네수엘라는 차베스 이전에, 이미 전임 대통령들에 의해 사회주의화가 시도되었고, 그 여파로 차베스가 등장한 것이다.
Venezuela Before Chavez: A Prelude to Socialist Failure
05/04/2017•José Niño
Jose Nino is a Venezuelan-American graduate student based in Fort Collins, Colorado. He has lived in Chile, Venezuela, and the United States. He is currently an analyst with the Acton Circle of Chile
Venezuela’s current economic catastrophe is well documented. Conventional narratives point to Hugo Chávez’s regime as the primary architect behind Venezuela’s economic tragedy. While Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro deserve the brunt of the blame for Venezuela’s current economic calamity, the underlying flaws of Venezuela’s political economy point to much more systemic problems.
Observers must look beyond stage one, and understand Venezuela’s overall history over the past 50 years in order to get a more thorough understanding of how the country has currently fallen to such lows.
Socialism Before Chávez
Analysts like to point to rosier pictures of Pre-Chávez Venezuela, but what these “experts” conveniently ignore is that the seeds of Venezuela’s destruction were sowed during those “glory years.” Years of gradual economic interventionism took what was once a country bound to join the ranks of the First World to a middle-tier developing country. This steady decline eventually created an environment where a demagogue like Chávez would completely exploit for his political gain.
The Once-Prosperous Venezuela
To comprehend Venezuela’s long-term decline, one must look back at what made it so prosperous in the first place. Before the completion of its first oil field on April 15, 1914, Venezuela was essentially a Banana Republic marked by political instability. This was largely a consequence of its colonial past and the period following its independence from Spain. Despite gaining independence from Spain, Venezuela maintained many of its primitive political and economic practices, above all, its exclusionary mercantilist and regulatory policies that kept it in an impoverished state.
However, the discovery of oil in the early twentieth century completely changed the entire ballgame. The powerful agricultural aristocracy would be supplanted by an industrialist class that sought to open its oil markets to multinational exploitation and foreign investment. For the first time in its history, Venezuela had a relatively liberal, free market economy and it would reap countless benefits in the decades to come.
From the 1910s to the 1930s, the much-maligned dictator Juan Vicente Gómez helped consolidate the Venezuelan state and modernized an otherwise neocolonial backwater by allowing market actors, domestic and foreign, to freely exploit newly discovered oil deposits. Venezuela would experience substantial economic growth and quickly establish itself as one of Latin America’s most prosperous countries by the 1950s.
In the 1950s, General Marcos Pérez Jiménez would continue Gómez’s legacy. At this juncture, Venezuela was at its peak, with a fourth place ranking in terms of per capita GDP worldwide.
More Than Just Oil
While oil exploitation did play a considerable role in Venezuela’s meteoric ascent from the 1920s to 1970s, this only scratches the surface in explaining how Venezuela became so prosperous during this period. A combination of a relatively free economy, an immigration system that attracted and assimilated laborers from Italy, Portugal, and Spain, and a system of strong property rights, allowed Venezuela to experience unprecedented levels of economic development from the 1940s up until the 1970s.
As mentioned earlier, Venezuela was at the height of its prosperity during the military dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez’s regime. Like Juan Vicente Gómez’s regime, Pérez Jiménez’s stewardship of Venezuela was characterized by heavy political repression.
Venezuela’s capitalist structure remained largely intact during Pérez Jiménez’s tenure, albeit with creeping degrees of state involvement. Pérez Jiménez did introduce some elements of crony capitalism, pharaonic public works projects, and increased state involvement in “strategic industries” like the steel industry. Nevertheless, the Pérez Jiménez regime was open to foreign investment, let the price system function normally in most sectors of the economy, and did not embark on creating a profligate welfare state.
The Road to Social Democracy
Despite the prosperity brought about by Venezuela’s booming economy in the 1950s, Marcos Pérez Jiménez’s government drew the ire of many left-leaning activists due its heavy-handed measures. The tipping point came in 1958, when these leftist activists, working in tandem with a sympathetic military, successfully overthrew Pérez Jiménez in a coup. Pérez Jiménez would live the rest of his life in exile and would be a figure of derision among Venezuelan intellectual and political elites, despite the unprecedented economic and social development under his watch.
Following the 1958 coup, naval officer Wolfgang Larrázabal occupied the presidency briefly until general elections were held later that year. Notable social democrat political leader Rómulo Betancourt would come out on top in these elections and assume the presidency from 1959 to 1964. The Fourth Republic of Venezuela — Venezuela’s longest lasting period of democratic rule, was established under Betancourt’s administration. In 1961, a constitution was introduced, dividing the government into 3 branches — executive, legislative, and judicial — and establishing an activist role for the Venezuelan state in economic affairs.
This political order was further consolidated by the establishment of the Punto Fijo Pact. The Punto Fijo Pact consisted of a bipartisan agreement between two political parties — Acción Democratica (Democratic Action) and COPEI (Christian Democrats) — that laid the foundation for a social democratic political order and alternation of power between the two parties.
What seemed like a genuine move toward democratic stability, Venezuela’s Fourth Republic marked the beginning of a process of creeping socialism that gradually whittled away at Venezuela’s economic and institutional foundations.
The Socialist Origins of Venezuela’s Pro-Democracy Advocates
Venezuela’s current collapse did not happen overnight. It was part of a drawn out process of economic and institutional decay that began decades before.
When Venezuela returned to democracy in 1958, it looked like it was poised to begin an era of unprecedented prosperity and political stability.
However, Venezuela’s democratic experiment was doomed from the start, and one needn’t look any further at the political background of its very own founder, Rómulo Betancourt, to understand why it’s entire political system was built on a house of cards.
Rómulo Betancourt was an ex-communist who renounced his Marxist ways in favor of a more gradualist approach of establishing socialism. Despite evolving into more of a social democrat, Betancourt still believed in a very activist role for the State in economic matters.
Betancourt was part of a generation of intellectuals and student activists that aimed to fully nationalize Venezuela’s petroleum sector and use petroleum rents to establish a welfare state of sorts. These political figures firmly believed that for Venezuela to become a truly independent country and free itself from the influence of foreign interests, the government must have complete dominion over the oil sector.
Under this premise, a nationalized oil industry would finance cheap gasoline, “free” education at all levels, healthcare, and a wide array of other public services.
This rhetoric strongly resonated among the lower and middle classes, which would form the bulwark of Betancourt’s party, Acción Democrática, voter base for years to come.
At its core, this vision of economic organization assumed that the government must manage the economy through central planning. Oil would be produced, managed, and administered by the state, while the government would try to phase out the private sector.
Interventionism from the Start
Betancourt’s administration, while not as interventionist as succeeding 4th Republic governments, capped off several worrisome policies, which included:
1.Devaluation of the Venezuelan currency, the Bolívar.
2.Failed land reform that encouraged squatting and undermined the property rights of landowners.
3.The establishment of a Constitutional order based on positive rights and an active role for the Venezuelan state in economic affairs
Betancourt’s government followed-up with considerable tax hikes that saw income tax rates triple to 36%. In typical fashion, spending increases would be accompanied with these increases, as the Venezuelan government started to generate fiscal deficits because of its out of control social programs. These growing deficits would become a fixture in Venezuelan public finance during the pre-Chávez era.
The Nationalization of the Oil Industry
While Betancourt did not achieve his end goal of nationalizing the Venezuelan oil industry, his government laid the foundation for subsequent interventions in that sector.
Thanks to the large oil boom of the 1970s, the government of Carlos Andrés Pérez capitalized on the unprecedented flow of petroleum rents brought about by the 1970s energy crisis where oil-producing countries like Venezuela benefited handsomely from high oil prices.
Betancourt’s vision was finally achieved in 1975, when Carlos Andrés Pérez’s government nationalized the petroleum sector. The nationalization of Venezuela’s oil industry fundamentally altered the nature of the Venezuelan state. Venezuela morphed into a petrostate, in which the concept of the consent of the governed was effectively turned on its head.
Instead of Venezuelans paying taxes to the government in exchange for the protection of property and similar freedoms, the Venezuelan state would play a patrimonial role by bribing its citizens with all sorts of handouts to maintain its dominion over them.
On the other hand, countries based on more liberal frameworks of governance have citizens paying taxes, and in return, these governments provide services that nominally protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. The state is not the owner, thus giving the citizens a strong check against the Leviathan should the government overstep its boundaries.
Oil Nationalization: A Pig Trough for Politicians
Pérez would take advantage of this state power-grab to finance a profligate welfare state and a cornucopia of social welfare programs that resonated strongly with the populace. As a result, deficit spending became embraced by the political class and increasing levels of foreign and public debt would become the norm in Venezuelan fiscal affairs.
At this juncture, Venezuela’s economy became overwhelmingly politicized. Oil boom periods were characterized by an inflow of petrodollars that the state used for pharaonic public works and social projects as a means to pacify the populace.
In reality, no real wealth creation took place during these boom periods, as the state redistributed the rents according to political whims and usurped functions traditionally held by civil society and private economic actors. When politicians and bureaucrats oversee businesses, decision-making is based on partisan and state interests rather than efficiency and consumer preferences.
Although the nationalization of the petroleum industry did not result in an immediate economic downturn, it laid the groundwork for institutional decay that would clearly manifest itself during the 80s and 90s.
-----------------------------------------------------------
황금연휴,고통연휴,지옥연휴,무덤연휴 신분 4극화시대
김환태
이처럼 오늘날 대한민국 사회는세계11위 경제대국이지만
국민 개개인의 삶의질 측면에서는 빛과 맛좋은 참살구 황금연휴 누리는 부유층과 귀족 노동자,
즐길 여유가 없고 휴일도 쉬지 못하는 빛좋은 개살구 중소기업 노동자,
차라리 일하고 싶어도 일거리가 없어 쉴 수 밖에 없는 빛바랜 개살구 중소기업 노동자,
일할 직장 자체가 없는 빛썩은 개살구 실업자 등 신분 4극화 사회다.
(조선토론 마당 발췌)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
오바마케어든 트럼프케어든 모두 집어치워라!
Obamacare? Trumpcare? Get Rid of it All
05/05/2017•Chris Rossini
Ever since the US government began to sink its claws into the medical industry a good 50 or so years ago, attempts at reducing costs have failed again and again. This is par for the course whenever government invades an industry.
Trying to reform this Frankenstein with either Obamacare, or Trumpcare, will solve nothing.
The problem is structural. Tinkering with this or that will just waste more time.
In order for real change to happen, a fundamental change has to occur in the thinking about what health care actually is. It's not what Americans have been conditioned to believe.
Peter Klein has put it into plain language in the following short video. I've also transcribed key sections below:
From a fundamental economics point of view, what is healthcare exactly? One of the things that's particularly frustrating for me as an economist is this notion that "healthcare" is some kind of a unique good or service, that everybody needs, everybody wants, but cannot be provided by the market the way the market provides shoes, or tomatoes, or automobiles, or any other good.
But what is healthcare?
Nobody consumes "healthcare". No one has a right to "healthcare," because healthcare is not a homogeneous thing.
There's no such thing as one unit of healthcare.
Rather what we mean by healthcare is a discreet set of specific commodities, goods and services, that you can buy in combinations, or different quality levels.
So open heart surgery is a service you can purchase on the market that contributes to your health. But so is taking an aspirin.
In other words, there's no such thing as "healthcare." There's a heterogenous bundle of goods and services that different individuals will want to consume at different levels.
Now when we think about it this way, it becomes far from obvious that these particular kinds of goods and services cannot be supplied on the market just like other goods and services.
If we would just allow the free market to work, if we could eliminate the third party payer system, the government subsidies on the expenditure side that drive prices up, there's no reason why a truly free market in healthcare goods and services couldn't be just as effective in the U.S. as the market for computers, software, automobiles, or the market for anything else.
It should be noted that it's not just the government that opposes the free market. Yes, politicians love wielding power and like forcing people to do things against their will.
But the cornucopia of crony businesses in the medical industry would oppose the free market as well. They have a sweet deal using government power to their advantage. The last thing they would want is to compete in a free market without government giving anyone an advantage.
<서구의학은 파산했다>의 필자로서 나 역시 의료보험을 반대한다. 엉터리 서구의학으로 한 해에 피해를 입는 사람들의 숫자는 전쟁의 사상자들보다 많다. 하지만 대부분의 사람들은 병이 들어 병원에 간 다음에야, 서구의학의 폐해를 경험하게 되는데, 그때는 이미 늦는다.
2천년이 넘는 시간과 사람들의 검증을 거친 한(漢)의학을 부활시키고, 대학에 정원을 두지 말며, 중국의 한의사 자격증까지 인정한다면, 우리는 몇 년 안에 한의학의 중흥과 함께 획기적인 국민 건강의 증진을 보게 될 것이다.
피터 클라인의 비디오
------------------------------
자폭 테러리스트들을 통제하는 유일한 방법은, 남은 가족이 경제적 부담을 지게 하는 것이다. 그리고 또 그 가족들이 순교자처럼 느끼지 않게 해야 한다.
The Skin of Others in your Game
나심 탈레브
The only way we have left to control suicide-terrorists would be precisely to convince them that blowing themselves up is not the worse-case scenario for them, nor the end-scenario at all. Making their families and loved ones bear a financial burden –just as Germans as still paying for war crimes –would immediately add consequences to their actions, inject that element of skin in the game that is needed. This requires some care in preventing their families from feeling martyrdom –the penalty needs to be properly calibrated to be a nuisance without imparting any form of heroism to the person. (발췌)
--------------------------------
빅데이터가 희망 사항이 아니기를 바란다.
------------------------------------------------------
<闯关东>은 高满堂、 孙建业가 극복을 쓴 드라마이다. 청 나라 말기부터 9. 18 사변(1931년의 봉천 사변)이 터지기 전까지 산동의 한 가족이 겪는 파란만장 시련을 그렸다. 李幼斌，萨日娜，小宋佳，朱亚文 등이 쟁쟁한 연기자들이 참여했다.
<闯关东>은 관동을 넘는다는 말인데, 청나라 말기에 산동성을 비롯 남쪽의 여러 지방에서 흉년이 들어 아사자들이 발생하자, 농민들이 관동 즉 산해관을 넘어 북쪽의 만주 벌판으로 땅을 찾아 이동한 사건을 가리킨다. 李幼斌이 주인공 朱开山을 연기하고, 몽골 출신의 배우 사르나萨日娜가 그의 아내 역을 맡았다.
극중에 리여유빈이 만주에서 음식점을 개업해서 옆의 가게와 경쟁하는 장면이 있는데, 여러 가지 신기한 음식들이 나온다.
하지만 뒤로 갈수록 일본군이 등장하면서 반일 의식을 고취하기 위한 듯한 느낌이 난다.
10점 만점에 9점,
------------------------------
闯关东中篇
《闯关东》에 이어 1931년부터 1949년까지의 중국 현대사를 다룬 드라마이다. 역시 高满堂，孙建业가 극본을 쓰고, 王茜华、苗圃、董璇、濮存昕、刘佩琦 등의 연기자들이 참여했다.
산동 핑두의 송가 집안의 天好、天星、天月 세 자매와 동생인 虎子가 동북지방으로 들어간 이후에, 9, 18 사변, 7. 7 사변, 국공합작, 일본의 항복, 동북 지방의 공산군에 의한 해방까지의 역사를 다루었다. 이 역시 반일본 드라마적인 성격이 강하지만, 극중에 백두산(창바이산)을 배경으로 재미 있는 에피소드들이 삽입되어 볼만 하다.
10점 만점에 8점
----------------------------------------------------
한국일보의 맞벌이 아내, 주말에 남편보다 가사노동이 4배라는 기사에 대한 김진영 씨의 댓글. 어설픈 페미니즘을 폭격하고 있다.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The left’s chapter of history has ended
사학자 닐 퍼거슨은 서구의 사민주의가 죽었다고 진단을 내렸는데, 한국에서는 이제 사민주의가 시작하려 하고 있다. 일단은 내일 선거의 결과를 보아야겠지만.
-----------------------------------------------
경제적 마르크시즘은 수십년전에 지적으로 거짓임이 폭로되었다. 공산권의 붕괴와 파산으로 공산주의 지식인들은 멍청이라는 것이 드러났다. 하지만 아직 문화적 마르크시즘의 파괴성과 위험성을 알고 있는 사람은 소수이다.
Doug Casey On The Plague Of Cultural Marxists
"Economic Marxism was intellectually debunked decades ago. With the collapse of the USSR, and radical changes in China, the man in the street became aware that the “intellectuals” were fools. And that is reinforced by the ongoing disasters in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela. So, since they recognize that there’s nothing to steal if they implement Marxian economic policies, most “intellectuals” no longer talk about them...Cultural Marxism, however, is just as destructive."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기