AHC: Make Venezuela as rich as Saudi Arabia

Neither food nor medicine is subject to Venezuela Sanctions. They can sell oil to buy as much food as they want. They chose not to.
b103f9ca-d26d-11ea-88dd-6bec610be4a6_image_hires_122738.jpg


And as pointed out in this Deutsche Welle article for example US sanctions really do impact Venezuelans' access to medicines, water and basic necessities.
 
I was about to say, having somebody other than CAP prevail in 1974 - maybe Fernandez defeats him straight up, or Burelli Rivas makes another go at it, or Betancourt makes a comeback, there’s a variety of options - would be a big butterfly, perhaps allowing Caldera’s philosophy to take root instead
What was Caldera's philosophy?
 
What was Caldera's philosophy?
Softly center-right (but not pro-military/oligarchy) Christian democracy skeptical of outright socialism with heavy emphasis on personal frugality by public officials. He and Betancourt, though in different parties, were good friends.

IOW, the opposite of CAP’s orgy of corruption
 
I wasn't a big fan of Saudi Arabia before 9/11...how about going at it the other way and shitting on SA until it's as bad off as Venezuela?
 
Sanctions didn't destroy the Venezuelan economy. The US doesn't even actually sanction countries anymore, other than those nations which are operating under legacy sanction regimes (Cuba, Iran).

They sanction specific individuals.

If you're saying that having the Minister of Oil Production's Swiss bank account frozen is causing an economic crisis in Venezuela, I would submit to you that you've discovered another flaw of socialism.
It might not have destroyed the economy but it has definitely turned Venezuela's economic crisis into a humanitarian one. In fact the foreign minister came out and said the cost of sanctions was $30 billion, that might not seem much to America but that is devastating for the people of Venezuela.

You may be surprised to find that it's hard to feed your people or give them basic commodities like toilet paper when you're being subject to what is essentially a blockade from the biggest economy on Earth.
 
It might not have destroyed the economy but it has definitely turned Venezuela's economic crisis into a humanitarian one. In fact the foreign minister came out and said the cost of sanctions was $30 billion, that might not seem much to America but that is devastating for the people of Venezuela.

You may be surprised to find that it's hard to feed your people or give them basic commodities like toilet paper when you're being subject to what is essentially a blockade from the biggest economy on Earth.

I've just explained to you that that is not the case.
 
Could avoiding the Caracazo do the trick? It created additional instability (including coup attempts) and made taboo of any removal of gasoline subsidies.
Only if the 1973 oil crisis is avoided, or at least mitigated so that Venezuelans are not not subject to the wild price fluctuations - for example, treating it not as a boom, but like everywhere else that was suffering shortages. Even then, it's basically putting a Band-Aid onto a system that was going to collapse sooner or later once the IMF decides to stick its nose in.
 
They just have to go through channels. They don't want to do that be that means it can't go through proscribed persons which means the corrupt government officials don't get their cut. Again they chose to do that.
Sanctions didn't destroy the Venezuelan economy. The US doesn't even actually sanction countries anymore, other than those nations which are operating under legacy sanction regimes (Cuba, Iran).

They sanction specific individuals.

If you're saying that having the Minister of Oil Production's Swiss bank account frozen is causing an economic crisis in Venezuela, I would submit to you that you've discovered another flaw of socialism.
It might not have destroyed the economy but it has definitely turned Venezuela's economic crisis into a humanitarian one. In fact the foreign minister came out and said the cost of sanctions was $30 billion, that might not seem much to America but that is devastating for the people of Venezuela.

You may be surprised to find that it's hard to feed your people or give them basic commodities like toilet paper when you're being subject to what is essentially a blockade from the biggest economy on Earth.
I've just explained to you that that is not the case.
I'm not sure why you guys are still trying to argue this. You can talk about "targeted individuals" or supposed "channels" all you want but at the end of the day we have evidence from US-based think-tanks showing that sanctions A) aren't effective in bringing about desired changes and B) hurt civilians:
What’s perhaps the most puzzling is the United States’ insistence on sanctions as its preeminent tool of diplomacy despite an abundance of evidence that suggests sanctions aren’t as potent as their proponents believe them to be. In fact, according to research on the efficacy of sanctions, sanctions have about a 4% success rate in achieving their stated purpose...
...
Take for example, a report published by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which found that American sanctions against Venezuela contributed to more than 40,000 deaths between 2017–2018. Study after study shows that while sanctions may not be effective in achieving desired outcomes like regime change, they are effective in reducing life expectancy, access to medicine, and overall quality of life.
 
I'm not sure why you guys are still trying to argue this. You can talk about "targeted individuals" or supposed "channels" all you want but at the end of the day we have evidence from US-based think-tanks showing that sanctions A) aren't effective in bringing about desired changes and B) hurt civilians:

Several things there.

We have plenty of examples of examples in history of sanctions having been effective in altering the policies of targeted nations. However, a key ingredient in this success tends to be governments which are accountable to electorates which can vote them out.

Rhodesia and South Africa spring to mind. Both regimes would have been able to continue almost indefinitely were it not for economic sanctions. And these governments were certainly accountable to electorates, albeit electorates which did not account for the majorities in their respective countries. When these electorates were no longer prepared to suffer the economic consequences of sanctions, these governments responded by changing policies.

However, I was not arguing about the efficacy of sanctions. Incidentally, these examples show how different modern sanctions regimes are. There was a total economic boycott of Rhodesia (an actual "embargo"). 95% of Rhodesian goods were banned from being imported by any Western nation. Rhodesian dollars could not be exchanged into pounds sterling, USD, Deutchmarks, or anything else, except, spottily, ZAR. Rhodesian students were barred from attending British universities, and had a very hard time gaining American visas.

There is nothing even remotely approaching that level of sanction on Venezuela. Once again, sanctions are now specific, rather than generalised. Entire countries are not boycotted, but rather specific named individuals and institutions.

And, once again, if the Venezuelan Oil Minister's Swiss Bank account being frozen causes any appreciable economic effect in Venezuela, that is a result of the corruption endemic to socialist countries.
 
Last edited:
Rhodesia and South Africa spring to mind. Both regimes would have been able to continue almost indefinitely were it not for economic sanctions. And these governments were certainly accountable to electorates, albeit electorates which did not account for the majorities in their respective countries. When these electorates were no longer prepared to suffer the economic consequences of sanctions, these governments responded by changing policies.
Some groups decided to give into the Sanctions, for the good of everyone in the Country, and did real election

The others didn't want to give up power. the Leadership didn't care about the people of the Country, so didn't care that they were suffering.
They were ontop, and everything was going good for them.

It's good to be the King, after all.
And his Ministers, Generals and elite Guards, needed to keep the corrupt system going
 
Some groups decided to give into the Sanctions, for the good of everyone in the Country, and did real election

The others didn't want to give up power. the Leadership didn't care about the people of the Country, so didn't care that they were suffering.
They were ontop, and everything was going good for them.

It's good to be the King, after all.
And his Ministers, Generals and elite Guards, needed to keep the corrupt system going

You misunderstood me. The sanctions affected their electorates, the white populations.
 
Several things there.

We have plenty of examples of examples in history of sanctions having been effective in altering the policies of targeted nations. However, a key ingredient in this success tends to be governments which are accountable to electorates which can vote them out.

Rhodesia and South Africa spring to mind. Both regimes would have been able to continue almost indefinitely were it not for economic sanctions. And these governments were certainly accountable to electorates, albeit electorates which did not account for the majorities in their respective countries. When these electorates were no longer prepared to suffer the economic consequences of sanctions, these governments responded by changing policies.

However, I was not arguing about the efficacy of sanctions. Incidentally, these examples show how different modern sanctions regimes are. There was a total economic boycott of Rhodesia (an actual "embargo"). 95% of Rhodesian goods were banned from being imported by any Western nation. Rhodesian dollars could not be exchanged into pounds sterling, USD, Deutchmarks, or anything else, except, spottily, ZAR. Rhodesian students were barred from attending British universities, and had a very hard time gaining American visas.

There is nothing even remotely approaching that level of sanction on Venezuela. Once again, sanctions are now specific, rather than generalised. Entire countries are not boycotted, but rather specific named individuals and institutions.

And, once again, if the Venezuelan Oil Minister's Swiss Bank account being frozen causes any appreciable economic effect in Venezuela, that is a result of the corruption endemic to socialist countries.
So the idea is to sanction Venezuela because it's government isn't accountable to the electorate (hence, calling Maduro a dictator). Ok. But if sanctions only work against governments accountable to the electorate, then, as it's happening, they won't work in Venezuela for any other reason than to reduce even more Venezuelans into poverty and death.

In reality, sanctions are a powerful country looking to look acting tough, but since they can't damage those in power in the target country, they take on the powerless.
 
So the idea is to sanction Venezuela because it's government isn't accountable to the electorate (hence, calling Maduro a dictator). Ok. But if sanctions only work against governments accountable to the electorate, then, as it's happening, they won't work in Venezuela for any other reason than to reduce even more Venezuelans into poverty and death.

In reality, sanctions are a powerful country looking to look acting tough, but since they can't damage those in power in the target country, they take on the powerless.

Can we please stop with the hyperbole?

The Oil Minister not being able to rent a Jaguar from his Swiss bank account whilst on holiday in Majorca did not plunge Venezuelans into poverty and death.

I don't know how many times, nor how many people, need to point out that American sanctions on Venezuela were and are targeted before these hyperbolic comments stop flowing.

Regardless, we're getting too close to current politics.
 
Last edited:
Can we please stop with the hyperbole?

The Oil Minister not being able to rent a Jaguar from his Swiss bank account whilst on holiday in Majorca did not plunge Venezuelans into poverty and death.

I don't know how many times, nor how many people, need to point out that American sanctions on Venezuela were and are targeted before these hyperbolic comments stop flowing.

Regardless, we're getting too close to current politics.
From this article above https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-cost-of-the-us-sanctions-on-venezuela/a-50647399
"We understand that the Pan American Health Organization has had to change the accounts [used to purchase the medicine] four times, because they keep getting blocked," says Marcel Quintana, the person in charge of the distribution of antiviral meds to the country's HIV patients, something Venezuela has provided free of charge for decades.
President Donald Trump intensified sanctions in 2017 and this year imposed an oil embargo that blocked the purchase of petroleum from Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA. It also confiscated Venezuela's US subsidiary CITGO, worth $8 billion. It was a huge blow for Venezuela, which received 90% of government revenue from the oil industry.

According to representatives from Hidrocapital, the state water agency for the capital, Caracas, roughly 15%-20% of Venezuelans don't have access to potable water in their homes, because the government cannot acquire new foreign-built parts to fix broken pumps and pipes.

"With the blockade, we've had situations, where we have the pumps and the motors and they are about to ship and then comes the all-powerful hand of the United States and they block the money in the bank or sanction the company that is working with us, just for selling us this equipment and without seeing that they are affecting people's lives," says Maria Flores, vice president of operations at Hidrocapital.

In response, Hidrocapital ships truckloads of water each week to needy communities. But the blockade, and the lack of parts for vehicles, is also impacting the number of water trucks Hidrocapital can keep on the road. Maria Flores says their fleet has been reduced by 75% over the last three years, to now only a handful of trucks.
 
Top