>Chavez didn't simply subsidize the poor. He also (a) nationalized the oil industry and (b) handed control and management of that industry over to political allies
Yeah, he nationalized the oil industry and redirected that stream of revenues to poverty reduction programs.
The US establishment was vehemently pissed at this audacity which is why they supported the coup to oust a (whisper it) democratically elected president and also wrote lots of angry articles about him, some of which you apparently read...
>handed control and management of that industry over to political allies who mismanaged it badly
The US oil companies who were carting the vast majority of Venezuela's national wealth out of the country prior to nationalization probably did have a more efficient set up, yes.
>Whatever you might think about his overt political objectives, it didn't work
What part of cutting poverty in half - his overt political objective - was such an abject failure?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11029049 --- a reply to another of your comments. That comment, of course, says the same thing that the comment you replied to; it's like you stopped reading at "it didn't work".
What's especially insidious about this logic is the fact that poor people in Venezuela have no international voice; if you're hearing complaints, they must be from the relatively well-off. That much is probably true, but look how that logic works to support the ineffective government of Venezuela: the well-off aren't complaining that it's too hard to buy BMW sedans. They're complaining that they can't fucking buy toilet paper. You think that means the poor people can? Or, what, food and toilet paper are bourgeois concerns?
>it's like you stopped reading at "it didn't work".
Are you disputing that poverty rates were cut in half or are you claiming that this is irrelevant because there are queues for toilet paper and TVs?
>What's especially insidious about this logic is the fact that poor people in Venezuela have no international voice; if you're hearing complaints, they must be from the relatively well-off.
I've been to Venezuela and I have met the rich, the middle class and the poor. I'm pretty clear about aware of what each group complains about and why.
It's not any real secret that the (often very violent) protests in Caracas are usually confined to the wealthy white neighborhoods, nor is it any secret that the very poor formed the bulk of Chavez's base (they adored him).
>That much is probably true, but look how that logic works to support the ineffective government of Venezuela: the well-off aren't complaining that it's too hard to buy BMW sedans. They're complaining that they can't fucking buy toilet paper. You think that means the poor people can?
I think that if you think queuing for toilet paper is the apex of poverty then you have no clue what true poverty really is.
>Or, what, food and toilet paper are bourgeois concerns?
Food and medical care is easier to come by these days for the very poor (what on earth did you think I meant by cut poverty in half?).
That's assuredly not a "bourgeois concern" although the obsession with removing price controls in order to eliminate queues most certainly is.
But, see, chavismo got soundly thumped in the latest elections precisely because it didn't deliver. It delivered some relief of poverty for a time. But it didn't deliver nearly as much as people expected, as measured by the latest election response.
Yeah, he nationalized the oil industry and redirected that stream of revenues to poverty reduction programs.
The US establishment was vehemently pissed at this audacity which is why they supported the coup to oust a (whisper it) democratically elected president and also wrote lots of angry articles about him, some of which you apparently read...
>handed control and management of that industry over to political allies who mismanaged it badly
The US oil companies who were carting the vast majority of Venezuela's national wealth out of the country prior to nationalization probably did have a more efficient set up, yes.
>Whatever you might think about his overt political objectives, it didn't work
What part of cutting poverty in half - his overt political objective - was such an abject failure?