Rich Venezuelans eat sushi, guzzle cocktails amid chaos

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is the end result of Socialism. An elite aristocracy lives the high life while the remaining 99% feed off the table scraps in the street. This is what the Bernie Sanders crowd wants for America.

"Wealth in Venezuela is generated by state revenues that depend on the oil sector," says Colette Capriles, a sociologist at Simon Bolivar University.

"The state redistributes that revenue. The Chavez government used it with preference for those who needed it most," with social welfare spending, she says.

- Show must go on -

But it also offered an opportunity for those close to power to line their pockets.

"This form of socialism has produced some very powerful millionaires," says Capriles.

"Most of them are government officials or people close to them -- and currently they are one of the main things holding up the government."

Rich Venezuelans eat sushi, guzzle cocktails amid chaos

 

[Pogo]

This is the end result of Socialism. An elite aristocracy lives the high life while the remaining 99% feed off the table scraps in the street. This is what the Bernie Sanders crowd wants for America.

Uhhhh...... No dear. It isn't.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I remember when the left crowed about the Venzuela "success story'"...knowing full well it would crash and burn...it always does.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

This is the end result of Socialism. An elite aristocracy lives the high life while the remaining 99% feed off the table scraps in the street. This is what the Bernie Sanders crowd wants for America.

Uhhhh...... No dear. It isn't.

It might not be what the Socialists want, but it's what usually ends up happening.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This is the end result of Socialism. An elite aristocracy lives the high life while the remaining 99% feed off the table scraps in the street. This is what the Bernie Sanders crowd wants for America.

"Wealth in Venezuela is generated by state revenues that depend on the oil sector," says Colette Capriles, a sociologist at Simon Bolivar University.

"The state redistributes that revenue. The Chavez government used it with preference for those who needed it most," with social welfare spending, she says.

- Show must go on -

But it also offered an opportunity for those close to power to line their pockets.

"This form of socialism has produced some very powerful millionaires," says Capriles.

"Most of them are government officials or people close to them -- and currently they are one of the main things holding up the government."

Rich Venezuelans eat sushi, guzzle cocktails amid chaos

From the article:

Eight pieces of salmon and shrimp sushi here cost 55,700 bolivars, or the equivalent of more than a quarter of the country's official monthly minimum wage.

That's some mighty pricey sushi; 55.7K bolivars corresponds to a little under $5,600 USD! The article also notes that Buddha

While the mass protests against President Nicolas Maduro show that Venezuelans' anger at their hardship is boiling over, the well-off are still managing to have fun. Behind tightly guarded and fortified walls, posh bars and eateries are full. The Buddha Bar opened in 2015, when the economic crisis was already well underway. One customer, Ahisquel, says she joins in the protests herself but still comes to the bar once a week with her husband, an oil executive. Like most customers interviewed, she declined to give her full name. "By day we throw stones and by night we come here," she says.

I'm not going to hold against someone the fact that they are wealthy enough to endure the hyperinflation and maintain their lifestyle. I might feel differently were they not "throwing stones by day," but the woman says she and other rich Venezuelans protest right along with the poor, as well they should for they surely realize that in an economy that prices eight pieces of sushi at ~$5600, their wealth isn't going to last very long.

Universally it seems, non-wealthy people think, or at least tonally remark, as though rich folks don't know their wealth and comfort is tied to the economic status of the nation in which they live. Thus rich folks in a nation face the exact same prospects as does "everyone else" for a life of penury. It takes affluent people longer to reach that status, but they no more care to do so than anyone else. Thus their "bitching and moaning" is every bit as sincere as that of folks who've already become destitute.

Moneyed individuals got that way (by and large) by rationally "reading and heeding the writing on the wall" and acting proactively to avail and position themselves to take advantage of what's to come. They don't stop doing so simply because their country is "going to hell in a handbasket." The portents of the "writing" in Venezuela bid the country's rich either to join the effort to effect ameliorative change or emigrate. I'd think, given that the economic calamity there isn't any longer new, those who were of a mind to move have. That suggests that the rich folks who remain are empathetic protesters seeking political and economic reparations.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

I remember when the left crowed about the Venzuela "success story'"...knowing full well it would crash and burn...it always does.

All conjoined economies and political regimes have their heydays. It's not a matter of whether they will collapse, or at least ebb; it's a matter of how long they endure at and near their zenith before doing so.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I remember when the left crowed about the Venzuela "success story'"...knowing full well it would crash and burn...it always does.

All economies and political regimes have their heydays. It's not a matter of whether they will collapse, or at least ebb; it's a matter of how long they endure at and near their zenith before doing so.

Socialism has never endured...and never will.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I remember when the left crowed about the Venzuela "success story'"...knowing full well it would crash and burn...it always does.

All economies and political regimes have their heydays. It's not a matter of whether they will collapse, or at least ebb; it's a matter of how long they endure at and near their zenith before doing so.

Socialism has never endured...and never will.

First, let me note that for clarity and precision, I should have written "conjoined economies and political regimes." It doesn't in this context make sense to discuss a national economy without also linking it to the political regime that implements and/or maintains a given body of economic policy. It's also worth noting that a political regime, in most instances, spans multiple specifically emplaced legislatures and executives/monarchs. For instance, though the PRC's had several Chairmen since Mao, the regime that exists now, in the context of this discussion, is essentially the same one Mao instituted. Similarly, in the context of my comment, the economic and political regime of France is essentially the same one that came about after the French Revolution.

Recognizing that on the continuum of economic systems, literally everything between the endpoints of 100% laissez faire and 100% command economy necessarily is socialism, the question is that of how socialist a given system be, not whether it is. I'm not aware of any national economy ever being 100% laissez faire. Even just a cursory examination of the history of economics that duly considers protectionism, mercantilism, and coerced (expressly or implicitly) import substitution and the nations that practiced those economic policies reveals greater and lesser degrees of socialist policies implemented to bolster national economies' GDP, employment, and the fortunes of people and industries within them. Also, not many nations have implemented a 100% command economy, and those that have tried and remain in existence haven't long enough existed -- the longest remaining one having only been around for but ~50 years -- in that modality for one to credibly attest to their being successful (or not) at doing so.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is the end result of Socialism. An elite aristocracy lives the high life while the remaining 99% feed off the table scraps in the street. This is what the Bernie Sanders crowd wants for America.

"Wealth in Venezuela is generated by state revenues that depend on the oil sector," says Colette Capriles, a sociologist at Simon Bolivar University.

"The state redistributes that revenue. The Chavez government used it with preference for those who needed it most," with social welfare spending, she says.

- Show must go on -

But it also offered an opportunity for those close to power to line their pockets.

"This form of socialism has produced some very powerful millionaires," says Capriles.

"Most of them are government officials or people close to them -- and currently they are one of the main things holding up the government."

Rich Venezuelans eat sushi, guzzle cocktails amid chaos

Well, the rich Russian aristocracy ate caviar right up to the time the peasants came for them.

 

[Old Rocks]

I remember when the left crowed about the Venzuela "success story'"...knowing full well it would crash and burn...it always does.

All economies and political regimes have their heydays. It's not a matter of whether they will collapse, or at least ebb; it's a matter of how long they endure at and near their zenith before doing so.

Socialism has never endured...and never will.

First, let me note that for clarity and precision, I should have written "conjoined economies and political regimes." It doesn't in this context make sense to discuss a national economy without also linking it to the political regime that implements and/or maintains a given body of economic policy. It's also worth noting that a political regime, in most instances, spans multiple specifically emplaced legislatures and executives/monarchs. For instance, though the PRC's had several Chairmen since Mao, the regime that exists now, in the context of this discussion, is essentially the same one Mao instituted. Similarly, in the context of my comment, the economic and political regime of France is essentially the same one that came about after the French Revolution.

Recognizing that on the continuum of economic systems, literally everything between the endpoints of 100% laissez faire and 100% command economy necessarily is socialism, the question is that of how socialist a given system be, not whether it is. I'm not aware of any national economy ever being 100% laissez faire. Even just a cursory examination of the history of economics that duly considers protectionism, mercantilism, and coerced (expressly or implicitly) import substitution and the nations that practiced those economic policies reveals greater and lesser degrees of socialist policies implemented to bolster national economies' GDP, employment, and the fortunes of people and industries within them. Also, not many nations have implemented a 100% command economy, and those that have tried and remain in existence haven't long enough existed -- the longest remaining one having only been around for but ~50 years -- in that modality for one to credibly attest to their being successful at doing so.

All the first world nations have a mix of socialism and regulated market economy. And since there are many variations, we have an ongoing experiment to decide what works the best.

 

[Political Junky]

This is the end result of Socialism. An elite aristocracy lives the high life while the remaining 99% feed off the table scraps in the street. This is what the Bernie Sanders crowd wants for America.

"Wealth in Venezuela is generated by state revenues that depend on the oil sector," says Colette Capriles, a sociologist at Simon Bolivar University.

"The state redistributes that revenue. The Chavez government used it with preference for those who needed it most," with social welfare spending, she says.

- Show must go on -

But it also offered an opportunity for those close to power to line their pockets.

"This form of socialism has produced some very powerful millionaires," says Capriles.

"Most of them are government officials or people close to them -- and currently they are one of the main things holding up the government."

Rich Venezuelans eat sushi, guzzle cocktails amid chaos

It's where this administration is leading the US.

 

[Lewdog]

Venezuela failed because they relied too heavily on oil... that's what happens when you don't have a diversified economy. But hey, don't let common sense ruin your argument.

 

[Pogo]

This is the end result of Socialism. An elite aristocracy lives the high life while the remaining 99% feed off the table scraps in the street. This is what the Bernie Sanders crowd wants for America.

Uhhhh...... No dear. It isn't.

It might not be what the Socialists want, but it's what usually ends up happening.

Sanders isn't a proponent of "socialism". He's a proponent of democratic socialism. His commonly-quoted model for that is Denmark. See 99% of Danes feeding off table scraps in the street? No, me neither.

I know it's trendy to drop the inconvenient adjective from the name so you can turn it into a different thing but that's dishonest. And it's equally disingenuous of the OP to ascribe such ideals where they don't exist.

All of which inability to deal with reality points to fear of it, and that's interesting.