Venezuela a failure of CAPITALISM.

LV426 said:
Venezuela relied on fossil fuels for its chief economic export and output. You're the ones who want that, remember? So when the price of oil falls, as it did in 2016, revenues fell as well. Venezuela needed to diversify its economy. Drilling for more oil isn't going to get Venezuela out of the pickle they are in.

You cannot drill your way to higher energy prices and thus, higher revenues.

Socialism has nothing to do with it. It's all pegged to the price per barrel.
Click to expand...

Prices go up, prices go down. Just because you get into an economic slump isn’t a reason to go full commietard


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
Prices go up, prices go down. Just because you get into an economic slump isn’t a reason to go full commietard
Click to expand...

I thought you said they went "full commie" before the price drops. So clearly, going "full commie" or not doesn't really have anything to do with the decline in the price per barrel, which is tied to supply.

So why are you blaming socialism for what happened in Venezuela when you so clearly make the argument that its the capitalist, global market for oil that hurt Venezuela because of the price drops?
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
Prices go up, prices go down.
Click to expand...

Do you know why they do that?

Because the supply of oil increases or decreases.

When supply increases, what happens to the price?

So if Venezuela had invested everything into their oil infrastructure when the market was good for them prior to 2016, like y'all are saying they should have, how would that have stopped what happened to Venezuela beginning in 2016, when the global price of oil dropped, and increasing output would only lower the price further?
 
LV426 said:
And over that time, the US oil and gas industry lost how many jobs?

Well, let's find out:

According to BLS, in 2008 there were a total of 154,000 people employed in oil and gas extraction. By February 2019, that number dropped to 150,000. And when did the drop occur? Late 2015.

Since reaching a peak of 200,800 people employed in October 2014, 25% of all oil and gas extraction jobs have been lost.

Why do you think that is?

The price per barrel, right?

So increasing production has what net effect on the price, and subsequently, employment and revenues?
Click to expand...

The issue was the boom in oil and gas production, not jobs. Producing more with fewer workers is due to increased productivity and technology allowing lower prices.
 
Flash said:
The issue was the boom in oil and gas production, not jobs
Click to expand...

But that ties into it, doesn't it?

Someone has to do the work of extracting oil, and from what the employment data shows, much of it was lost (probably) to innovation and increased automation. After all, production increased as you pointed out, yet employment has steadily declined. So as you said, they're doing more with less. The net result is lower prices overall because of higher output.


Producing more with fewer workers is due to increased productivity and technology allowing lower prices.
Click to expand...

Because of the increase in output, not the means by which that output is increased (whether through automation or simply more hiring). The price per barrel isn't affected whether a machine or a person is extracting the oil; the price per barrel is affected only by the supply. So increasing the supply will have the net effect of lowering the price. That hurts nations and states like Venezuela and Texas, who rely on revenues from fossil fuels to subsidize low tax rates.
 
LV426 said:
Because of the increase in output, not the means by which that output is increased (whether through automation or simply more hiring). The price per barrel isn't affected whether a machine or a person is extracting the oil; the price per barrel is affected only by the supply. So increasing the supply will have the net effect of lowering the price. That hurts nations and states like Venezuela and Texas, who rely on revenues from fossil fuels to subsidize low tax rates.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but it helps the 300 million Americans who benefit from lower gas prices.

Refineries have been expanding and thousands are involved in those construction activities but relatively few permanent jobs because of the automation in refining. In my area there is a lot of growth in natural gas exporting facilities (LNG) that were built for importation but switched to exportation during construction.
 
LV426 said:
I thought you said they went "full commie" before the price drops.
Click to expand...
Hell yeah. Chavez took power in 1999. You didn't smell the socialist stink on him back then? Shit, it was like half a bottle of Hai Karate after shave

So clearly, going "full commie" or not doesn't really have anything to do with the decline in the price per barrel, which is tied to supply.
Click to expand...
Never said it did. What I said was if the price goes down, you don't go full commieTARD like maduro did. That fucker is the reincarnation of stalin


So why are you blaming socialism for what happened in Venezuela when you so clearly make the argument that its the capitalist, global market for oil that hurt Venezuela because of the price drops?
Click to expand...
Actually I'm blaming maduro, but let's see here. Oil prices start dropping, 3 options come to my mind:
1) You at LEAST examine the way capitalists deal with these things and maybe, just maybe, you ask for help. Especially if you are a bus driver from Caracas
2) You invite your russian buddies to land their intercontinental nuclear bombers in your country and visit for awhile, and when they leave, you call tehran and invite a few iranian naval vessels over
3) You decide this game is too rough, and you take your ball and go home
Which door did maduro pick? 1, 2 or 3?

You know who else has a shit load of oil and a fucked up economy? Russia. You know, that place that was pretty much the birthplace of socialism? You know what country has a BIGGER, much more robust economy than russia? TEXAS! Oh, did I say "country"? My bad, Texas is a fucking STATE
Click to expand...
 
Venezuela was vulnerable because it was so dependent on a single product, oil. The oil controlling countries could gut them any time they felt like it. Then they did. It actually had done a lot for the citizens ie in schools and infrastructure. They had spent money on the people. But if you are not super capitalistic, the wealthy will take you down. When oil dropped, the country suddenly suffered.
 
Flash said:
Agreed, but it helps the 300 million Americans who benefit from lower gas prices.

Refineries have been expanding and thousands are involved in those construction activities but relatively few permanent jobs because of the automation in refining. In my area there is a lot of growth in natural gas exporting facilities (LNG) that were built for importation but switched to exportation during construction.
Click to expand...

There is a definite oversupply of oil, particularly in the PADD II region because that is the current destination for most of the Alberta Tar Sands sludge. So much of it, in fact, that refineries in the Midwest enjoy price discounts because of the oversupply.

The KXL pipeline would reverse that oversupply by diverting the flow of oil from PADD II down to the Gulf Coast where the Tar Sands sludge can be refined and sold globally. That will cause the price per barrel to increase, which is what TransCanada even said in their permit application.
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
Never said it did. What I said was if the price goes down, you don't go full commieTARD like maduro did. That fucker is the reincarnation of stalin
Click to expand...

You JUST SAID in literally the sentence before, that Chavez went full commie back in 1999. So you're just shifting goalposts around to accommodate your bullshit argument that socialism, and not the global oil market, is to blame for the problems Venezeula faced once the price per barrel dropped.
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
2) You invite your russian buddies to land their intercontinental nuclear bombers in your country and visit for awhile, and when they leave, you call tehran and invite a few iranian naval vessels over
Click to expand...

???? What? So in response to the drop of oil prices, you think Venezuela should have their allies send military vessels and planes to the country? How does that address the problem of declining revenues due to a declining price per barrel?
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
3) You decide this game is too rough, and you take your ball and go home
Click to expand...

You're a very immature person who doesn't grasp this subject because you don't understand it yourself.

"Take your ball and go home"? What? What does that even mean? Who takes the ball? And whose home? What? Stop fucking up metaphors, you illiterate goober.
 
Callinectes Ocasio-Cortez said:
You know who else has a shit load of oil and a fucked up economy? Russia. You know, that place that was pretty much the birthplace of socialism? You know what country has a BIGGER, much more robust economy than russia? TEXAS! Oh, did I say "country"? My bad, Texas is a fucking STATE
Click to expand...

Texas faced similar problems as Venezuela did because Texas relies so heavily on fossil fuel revenues in lieu of taxation:

Texas, Once a Star, Becomes a Drag on the U.S. Economy
https://www.wsj.com/articles/texas-once-a-star-becomes-a-drag-on-the-u-s-economy-1476264601

So it's weird that you would be so in love with the ex-KGB agent who currently runs Russia as a fascist oligopoly.

Russia is exactly what you want here; an oligarchical autocracy.

That's what you want here.
 
Nordberg said:
Venezuela was vulnerable because it was so dependent on a single product, oil. The oil controlling countries could gut them any time they felt like it. Then they did. It actually had done a lot for the citizens ie in schools and infrastructure. They had spent money on the people. But if you are not super capitalistic, the wealthy will take you down. When oil dropped, the country suddenly suffered.
Click to expand...
So maybe going “super capitalistic” might have been a better option? This is one of the biggest problems with socialism. You turn over the means of production to the proletariat, run the bourgeoisie out of town on a rail, and you’re left with a bunch of happy, empowered nitwits who can’t find their asses with both hands and a flashlight. Industry NEEDS capital, like it or not, and these guys can’t capitalize lunch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top