Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Private property under attack in Venezuela

This is a fast moving train wreck.
Hugo Chávez, the country’s leftist president, has been on a nationalisation spree, seizing everything from steel companies and bottle makers to housing schemes. ...
Polls suggest that most Venezuelans disapprove of the nationalisations and firmly support private property. But Mr Chávez seems to be following the advice of Alan Woods, a Welsh Trotskyist who has become an informal adviser. Mr Woods, who is better known in Caracas than Cardiff, publicly urged the president to respond to his electoral setback by “accelerating the revolutionary process”, expropriating land, banks and the main industries. Venezuelans had better brace themselves for more nationalisation, scarcity and economic decline.


  1. Just like the Chinese should have been bracing over the past decades for more nationalisation, surplus and economic growth? Seems like it depends more one's perspective...

  2. I think that it is very much true this depend on perspective. The perspective that I am looking at it from is how this benefits the economy and therefore the people. If nationalization of resources occurs, GDP falls (a broad generalization, but I think a safe assumption) because of the inherent wastefulness of government run businesses. In other words, they become less efficient. Perhaps I am reading the previous comment incorrectly, but I am assuming the point is that certain Chinese citizens applaud nationalization because of their pro-marxist opinions, then yes it makes sense that their perspectives would differ. But it doesn't mean that their perspective is correct.

  3. What I meant in the intial post is the assumption that government involvement in business automatically leads to inefficiency and train wrecks is a distortion of the truth. China is a - but they are not the only country. So, if you measure 'correctness' by economic strength and societal benefit, I would say they have a correct perspective.