
Venezuela seizes toilet paper factory to avoid shortage - antr
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24185342
======
throwaway_yy2Di
Apparent explanation here, in more depth than "price controls => shortage":

"This Is Why There Is No Toilet Paper in Venezuela"

[http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/17/this_i...](http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/17/this_is_why_there_is_no_toilet_paper_in_venezuela)

 _The problems of the local toilet paper industry are illustrative. Typical of
the global supply chain, many inputs that manufacturers need to produce toilet
paper are also imported. But since Venezuela has extensive currency exchange
controls to regulate the flow of foreign currency (which can either be bought
/sold or obtained through trade), the government must approve all imports --
and the red tape involved is legendary._

 _In theory, the way the Venezuelan system should work is the following: The
government authorizes imports by selling dollars that businesses buy to make
international purchases at a heavily-subsidized price -- discounted at a much
lower price than what the black market sells it for. After the imports have
arrived and have cleared customs (lines at ill-equipped Venezuelan ports can
last weeks), local manufacturers produce their goods, and then sell their
products at tightly-controlled prices._

 _[...]_

 _In reality, the government 's ineffective regulation not only discourages
investment, but creates incentives for people in the chain of production to
take advantage of access to cheap dollars and sell them in the highly
profitable black market. With "import dollars" reallocated to currency
arbitrage, there is little money left to import the raw materials needed to
make things that Venezuelans need._

~~~
calibraxis
Venezuela is the happiest country in South America, according to the World
Happiness Index published last week by the U.N. Sustainable Development
Solutions Network. ([http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-
blog/you-pr...](http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/you-
probably-didnt-hear-that-venezuela-was-again-ranked-the-happiest-country-in-
south-america))

The BBC article portrays a country reacting quickly and aggressively to "avoid
any scarcity of the product". And US critics (who view Venezuela as an enemy
for disobeying their ideology) are reduced to writing articles about toilet
paper.

BTW, Krugman and even Greenspan actually advocated nationalizing US banks as a
condition of the bailout. (They advocated selling the banks to private
investors after cleaning them up. But we could imagine the US public owning
the banks rather than wealthy elites.) A bit bigger than toilet paper.
([http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23krugman.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23krugman.html))

~~~
lemma
Paragraph 1 is a non sequitur in the purest sense of the term.

Paragraph 2 mentions US critics, but unless the link changed, the article is a
link to the BBC which: 1. is British and 2. a reporting of fact with no
judgement expressed. In any case, your comment reveals more than any op-ed
ever could.

Paragraph 3 is again bizarre assuming we're reading the same article (I double
checked as I've read this story before- the news here seems to be the
nationalization part).

So I'll conclude with this: there's a lot of criticism of the US sharedand
discussed on this site, but I never notice anyone get so defensive about it,
whether they agree with it or not. Why is this article so troubling to you?
Especially if it's something you claim is so insignificant.

~~~
calibraxis
Paragraph 1: The Foreign Policy article decries _" the Venezuelan economic
model of excessive meddling"_. The Happiness Index report puts this in
perspective.

Furthermore, the CEPR link points out: _" It is perhaps not surprising that
media outlets that regularly try to convince their audiences that the social
democratic policies being pursued in countries in Scandinavia, South America
and elsewhere are a failure don’t want to report the contentment of citizens
living in these countries."_

So, there is a propaganda aspect to such weird articles about... toilet paper.
Particularly since Venezuela is such an enemy nation that Jimmy Carter
publicly claims the US was "likely behind" the Venezuelan coup.
([http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Carter:_US_%22likely_behind%22_V...](http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Carter:_US_%22likely_behind%22_Venezuela_coup))

Paragraph 2 responded to a post which merely quoted Foreign Policy, a US
magazine owned by a mass media company.

Your paragraph 3 is unclear to me.

Your paragraph 4 is ad hominem and ironic.

------
unsigner
Toilet paper was a precious rarity in 1980s Bulgaria. Those ignoring the
lessons of history are doomed to carefully collect yesterday's newspapers and
stack them in the bathroom.

~~~
Zuider
Pravda was printed on such rough paper. Ach, how The truth hurts!

------
alexeisadeski3
Socialists, I love you. Please don't ever change.

------
bmmayer1
A classic example of the so-called solution to shortages being the problem in
the first place. Who's going to invest in a toilet paper factory in Venezuela
now if it's just going to get stolen from you?

------
oleganza
Apparently the fact that all other TP factories went bankrupt (or were
prevented from being created by the loving government), so there is just one
and it cannot produce enough of paper to satisfy demand, is not a hard proof
of a total failure of government's policy. If the government was doing nothing
wrong in the first place, why would there ever be a situation like this?

I really doubt if this factory's owners somehow unfairly prevent competitors
from jumping in and satisfying demand. And if they do, most probably they use
_government_ as a nice tool to regulate competition out of existence.

In other words: whenever something globally shitty happens for no obvious
reason, it's always a government and its monopoly of violence at fault.

------
toiletpaperwtf
So I had to create a throwaway account since this is kind of a sensitive
subject, but:

Why do so many people in the Western hemisphere use toilet paper? If you had
fecal matter on your hand, would you wash it, or just wipe it with some paper
and call it good? I've never actually understood this, and it leads to
questionable personal hygiene. (Let's just say I put a finger somewhere
during..um..and it didn't exactly come out clean.)

The ideal way to wash is with water, and maybe afterwards pat down with some
TP to dry off. That's what a lot of South Asian countries and the Japanese do.
I hope the American and European people learn to do this simple trick some
day. Might help decrease the use of this ridiculous anachronism and save some
trees.

~~~
hncomment
As a North American who enjoys discussing taboo subjects clinically and
honestly, and in the interest of cultural understanding, I would explain it
as:

Cleanliness standards for the hands are much higher than for the rectum area.
For hands, not just water but soap is expected, after any work with
biologically-suspect materials or surfaces (raw foods, places of illness,
bathroom visits).

But for "down below," the paper-wipe is considered sufficient, with usual
assumptions about clothing, bathing schedule, etc. The paper enables wiping
until there's no trace (on the white paper) of any feces. The seated toilet
(less common in other regions) helped spread open the rear cheeks; after
standing any surfaces that were only-paper-wiped seem very nearly 'retracted'
so as to not even be in contact with underwear. Within 12-24 hours, a full-
body bathe and freshly-cleaned clothes are likely.

Still, those with predictable bowel movements may time them so they
immediately precede a daily shower. In many bathrooms the sink is close enough
to allow wetting toilet paper for part of the cleanup, and prepackaged
moistened wipes are rising in popularity, and have long been used for messy-
baby-cleanup.

Turning things around and looking at rinse-cultures, I'm probably not alone
among North Americans in wondering:

(1) Doesn't the spray get droplets of feces-water mix everywhere? (Supposedly
ideal bathroom hygiene is to close the toilet lid before flushing, to avoid
sending a mist of toilet water into the air. Any forced-water rinsing seems to
guarantee a mixed-mist reaches everywhere, including parts of the buttocks and
legs far from the rectum that are never contaminated by paper-wiping.)

(2) Short of absolutely drenching yourself with multiple power rinses, how do
you know you're "done" \- that none of the remaining dampness is still fecal-
contaminated water? (White paper provides a visual completion indicator.)

(3) My very rough impression is that fecally-transmitted diseases (typhoid,
hepatitis, cholera, anything diarrhea-causing, etc.) are more prevalent in
rinse-cultures. Are you sure that "a lot of South Asian countries" should be
the "ideal way to wash" model, as opposed to the other way around? (North
American practice would change very fast if there were evidence paper-wiping
was insufficient to protect health.)

~~~
toiletpaperwtf
Answers:

(1) Doesn't the spray get droplets of feces-water mix everywhere? (Supposedly
ideal bathroom hygiene is to close the toilet lid before flushing, to avoid
sending a mist of toilet water into the air. Any forced-water rinsing seems to
guarantee a mixed-mist reaches everywhere, including parts of the buttocks and
legs far from the rectum that are never contaminated by paper-wiping.)

Not really, it depends upon the spray. Most sprays are gentle, not the high-
pressure hosepipe you seem to be imagining.

(2) Short of absolutely drenching yourself with multiple power rinses, how do
you know you're "done" \- that none of the remaining dampness is still fecal-
contaminated water? (White paper provides a visual completion indicator.)

You can always check with paper. Other than that, you check with your hand.
Still much cleaner than leaving dried fecal matter in your rectum.

(3) My very rough impression is that fecally-transmitted diseases (typhoid,
hepatitis, cholera, anything diarrhea-causing, etc.) are more prevalent in
rinse-cultures. Are you sure that "a lot of South Asian countries" should be
the "ideal way to wash" model, as opposed to the other way around? (North
American practice would change very fast if there were evidence paper-wiping
was insufficient to protect health.)

That has more to do with the water supply being contaminated with fecal
matter, and not enough fresh sources of uncontaminated water being available
for drinking in those countries.

~~~
hncomment
_most sprays are gentle_

If you say so. Last spray setup I saw was a garden hose with a pistol-nozzle
at the end (in Indonesia, no paper provided). Even assuming some other more-
gentle delivery mechanism, the geometries make it seem likely some of the
'rinse' will drip back onto the nozzle, higher areas of the toiler, and other
parts of the lower body. Paper allows precision.

 _check with your hand_

Yuck! Even though hands get a wash later, the paper approach has as its goal:
hand never contacts feces, toilet/black water, or rectum area.

•leaving dried fecal matter in your rectum*

If you're wiping fresh feces with proper paper, there isn't any visible fecal
matter when finished.

Perhaps there's trace residue below visual perception. If so, it's not obvious
that a gentle rinse with water alone would be any better at
removing/sterilizing that. (A powerful rinse might help: but we've ruled that
out to prevent splatter. A rinse with soapy water might help: but that doesn't
seem to be the standard. Extra physical wiping with damp tissue might help, so
that's sometimes done if there's a fresh-water source within reach.)

------
zebra
Too much socialism is not a good thing. Same for the capitalism.

~~~
ihsw
We can play the word game and throw political ideologies around like frisbees,
but the real issue is price controls.

During the Hurricane Sandy disaster there were price caps on gas and the
desired effect was to discourage panic buying, but the opposite occurred --
since suppliers had no interest in accommodating the authorities then supply
dried up.

It's not a matter of the suppliers being greedy assholes about it, but there
were real and higher costs associated with supplying gas to NYC and the
surrounding areas. They just didn't want to take the hit to their pocketbooks
and I don't blame them.

What also happened was the well-connected people were able to make
arrangements for their own private supplies of gas, and those people included
politicians, business leaders, and other wealthy people, but it was secretive
and supply was restricted to them. The politicians were publicly
attacking/shaming "scalpers" who were trying to sell gas at a fair price,
meanwhile they were secretly making back-room deals for themselves.

What's the lesson here? Depends on who you ask and what you goals are.
Instituting price caps usually results in suppliers losing interest and
disappearing, which is probably what happened in Venezuela.

Oh, and a black market of gas emerged. There were iOS and Android apps for
finding suppliers and becoming a supplier yourself. I'm usually the first to
ridicule statements like "the market corrected itself" but it stands to reason
that it applies here quite well.

~~~
wjnc
There's a nice Econtalk on 'price gouging' [1] that talks at length on this
subject. ihsw hits the highlights.

[1]
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/01/munger_on_price_1.h...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/01/munger_on_price_1.html)

~~~
ihsw
It's interesting because my information source on this is mostly reddit.com
comments across a wide variety of sections -- nyc, economics, conspiracy,
libertarian, communism.

