If you could produce so much oil, then you wouldn't have the debt in the first place.
So the debt actually went up by the Bolivar devaluation, because now Venezuelans must create 20 times the value they created before in order to repay the debt.
The issue comes from the fact that during the last weeks/month, oil production has significantly dwindled due to political turmoil. Instead of defaulting on the foreign debt, they sacrificed their own population.
They do not need to create 20x the value they created before. The USD price of a Kilogram of coffee did not change at all, so any amount of coffee they would be selling now will contribute the exact same amount towards foreign debt reduction than the same amount produced 3 month ago: they don't suddenly need to produce 20x more.
On the other hand, if they did sell a significant amount of coffee 3 month ago and saved the profits in bolivars for their old days, or to invest in modernising the farm, their savings just got divided by 20.
Also, renovation of the Venezuelan infrastructure was paid for but not accomplished (graft/corruption). So they're in a hole for efficient production?
Finally, food production: they divided up farms and gave small holdings to the workers, who unfortunately had not the education, equipment nor capital to run them. So food supplies tanked, resulting in foreign exchange being used principally to import food.
All this added up to, a total fail of the regime to pay for their socialist experiment? Never mind games with imaginary points (currency valuation). The country can't feed itself nor make its own food nor trade its resources for food. They're in a big hole.
They just need to switch to a working version and they should be good.
/s
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20democrac...
If you use the real definition of socialism, you might as well say "the US should not adopt Nazism" as "the US should not adopt socialism" because both are equally likely to actually be adopted (i.e. not very likely at all). No mainstream politician in the US is suggesting that the state should take over ownership of most private businesses.
Not true. Especially not in Europe.
> hit that Merriam-Webster link in the parent
Unfortunately, Merriam-Webster has it wrong in this case. Social democracy is not a synonym for democratic socialism. The two are very different ideologies with very different goals. As stated in the Wikipedia article for social democracy (with accompanying references):
"Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and capitalist economy... Social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor) with a qualitatively different socialist economic system... By the post-World War II period, most social democrats in Europe had abandoned their ideological connection to Marxism and shifted their emphasis toward social policy reform in place of transition from capitalism to socialism." [emphasis added]
Contrast this with the article for democratic socialism:
"Democratic socialism is further distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism... As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system—i.e. by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production."
In summary, social democracy grew out of a movement that advocated transitioning from capitalism to socialism, but ultimately rejected such a transition in favor of working within a capitalist economy. Democratic socialism, on the other hand, advocates for the abolition of capitalism and private property. It does not reflect the present policies of Denmark and Germany, given that neither intends to abolish private property and transition to a socialist economy.
Two of our four major parties (the NDP and the Parti Québécois) officially adheres to a Democratic Socialist policy [1]. Sure they've not had a turn at governing though they've been the official opposition, and the NDP is currently in charge of the Alberta government. They're not some fringe party. Their platform overlaps heavily with the ruling Federal Liberals - and they're both considered "centre-left" parties.
Second, even if the NDP and PQ adhered to democratic socialism, that would not mean Canada is democratic socialist. The fact that the Conservative Party adheres to conservatism, for example, does not mean Canada is conservative.
Third, Canada is not democratic socialist because democratic socialism is incompatible with capitalism. Democratic socialists are committed to the systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism, including the elimination of private property. There is simply no realistic chance of Canada transitioning to a socialist economy and eliminating private property in the foreseeable future. This doesn't mean it couldn't happen eventually, just that it is not feasible under Canada's current political climate, government institutions, and legal framework.
PS: Did you mean to refer to Bloc Québécois (the federal party) rather than Parti Québécois (the provincial party)?
Previously Canada has had and spun off: Nationalized petroleum company (PetroCanada), package delivery company (Purolator), freight rail network (CN), airline (Air Canada) and aircraft manufacturer (Canadair).
I feel the reason many people don't associate Canada with 'real' socialism is that I feel socialism in Canada is a pragmatic and not idealistic decision in many cases. It's a massive country and as a result it's not economical to provide many essential services. These services are pragmatically socialized, and once they become profitable to operate as businesses are spun off as was done with the aforementioned.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_corporations_of_Canada
[2] https://www.thestar.com/business/2018/08/09/ontario-power-ge...
(Using the definition "a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices")
Not at all, case in point: We are having a political discourse and people don't consider it interchangeable.
Most industry in Venezuela is privately or publicly owned.
Venezuela also is not by definition a socialist country, it just has a socialist party whose goal is socialism. There still is a relatively strong opposition.
According to the Canada 2006 Census, 316,350 Canadians reported American as being their ethnicity, at least partially. There are also between 900,000 and 2 million Americans living in Canada, either as full-time or part-time residents. [1]
According to U.S. Census estimates the number of Canadian residents was around 640,000 in 2000. [2]
According to Stats Canada, the trend has reversed over time as the absolute number of Canadians living in the US peaked in 1930 at 1.3MM, which would be about 12% of the Canadian population at the time, down to a current 1.8% [3] On the other hand, Americans in Canada acount for 0.66%. At most it's a 3X discrepancy, not 10X, and it's largely due to the draw of the US economy. What would be more interesting to me, IMO, would be how many return home.
By all means, have at them windmills though, at least you've got a good view from on top that high horse ;)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Canadians
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Americans
[3] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-008-x/2010002/article...
The socialism in Venezuela is also of the crazy-left type, not even remotely as in Denmark or Germany.
> Venezuela produces extra-heavy crude oil in the Orincoco Oil Belt area and heavily relies on imports of lighter liquids (diluents) to blend with this crude oil to make it marketable. Financial difficulties recently have occasionally prevented the state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PdVSA), from importing the necessary volumes of diluent to sustain production and exports.
It's funny because 'stability and predictability' alone would yield them the kind of business climate and interest rates they would need to attract investment and they'd be much richer as a result.
Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia proves that your point is not right.
How so?
If they were like Japan, or Germany, or Sweden - they would get tons of investment.
Canada is the 'other country' that has vast Oil Sands and we get billions invested to extract it. The volatility is only in the market demand side, not the geopolitics side.
[1]: "Some statistics on this page are disputed and controversial. Different sources (OPEC, CIA World Factbook, oil companies) give different figures. Some of the differences reflect different types of oil included. Different estimates may or may not include oil shale, mined oil sands or natural gas liquids."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics
Even with conventional oil, though, 11th place worldwide seems reasonable, particularly compared to neighboring countries (behind Nigeria and ahead of Kazakhstan, China, and Qatar). Don't forget that the U.S. still has very active oil production in Alaska, Southern California, Texas/Oklahoma, and the offshore Gulf of Mexico.
[0] https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/crude-oil-production
One thing I find interesting is that Venezuela might have the number 1 oil reserves, and that's repeated over and over. Their oil is garbage (extremely heavy) and requires the importation of dilutants paid for by foreign currency, as well as equipment and specialized engineers that are paid for by foreign currency as well. If the prices of oil are too low, it doesn't matter how much oil is under the land they're sitting on. It's going to stay there until kingdom come.
The 95% devaluation doesn't really change anything - unless you were specially connected, you couldn't change bolivars for USD at the official exchange rate. At most this devaluation just brings the official rate back in line with the black market rate, which is the real exchange rate because that's the only rate at which you can actually exchange currency.
Folks holding bolivars (and creditors, and pensioners) were already screwed. This just makes it official.