Talk:Economy of Venezuela

History section is long
I have some concerns about the article. Check the history section now and the history section a few months ago: ]. The current version is much longer. Much of the content seems ok (I have not read it entirely), but most is done by an anonymous user and sometimes it has raised copyrights concerns (see deleted editions of 27 November 2019). Can somebody check it out? Also we have a recently created article called Economic history of Venezuela, maybe some of the content here should be moved there.--MaoGo (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also the article is almost WP:TOOBIG!--MaoGo (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=Gb0XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1&hl=es&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4280:480:F191:2D7A:2E5D:3DE9 (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear anonymous user, I cannot tell if you are implying that the recently added text was copied from that book or you are just suggesting that we add more from that source. Which is it?--MaoGo (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the article to the edit linked above (which I found independently). Every single substantial edit I've checked by this anon has been a copyright violation, and their edits are highly untrustworthy. I've also blocked them. Graham 87 07:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The history section now needs information about the pre-1922 history of Venezuela, including the Guipuzcoan Company and the economy before the oil discovery. However, I'm confident that this content can be copied from other articles, briefly and with the proper attribution. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As previously remarked, the economic history should go back to independence. I added an Expand section banner. BFG (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Venezuela is not a "mixed market" economy, as asserted
The article begins: "The economy of Venezuela is a market-based mixed economy based largely on the petroleum and manufacturing sectors."

Although the assertion cites a State Department backgrounder which is rather vague about the country's economics, even it refers to more evidence that it is a socialist economy than a "mixed market" one. I will address this first. The first evidence for this is given in the section U.S.-VENEZUELA RELATIONS, which includes the following:

″Venezuela’s recent presidents, the late Hugo Chavez (1999-2013) and Nicolas Maduro (2013-present), have defined themselves in part through their opposition to the United States, regularly criticizing the U.S. government, its policies, and its relations with Latin America. President Maduro has also continued his predecessor’s policies, notably what the Venezuelan government refers to as "21st Century Socialism," which is characterized by an outsized role for the executive, extensive state intervention in the economy, and efforts to expand Venezuelan economic and political influence among nations in Latin America and the Caribbean.″

These are traditional Soviet-style policies based upon Marxist-Leninist theory interpreted through the Cold War division between "capitalist" and "communist" countries (opposition to the US, powerful executive, extensive intervention in the economy, expansion of its system to other countries); and, as indicated, the government calls its own system (21st Century) Socialism. The State Department article goes on later to spell out some of the socialist interventions into the economy, which again are consistent with a socialist, not a "mixed market" economy. The "state intervention in the economy" includes:

″expropriations, macroeconomic distortions, physical insecurity, corruption, and a volatile regulatory framework make Venezuela a challenging climate for U.S. and multinational companies. A complex foreign exchange regime and restricted access to dollars have prevented firms from repatriating their earnings out of Venezuela and importing industrial inputs and finished goods into Venezuela. Extremely limited access to dollars, price controls, and rigid labor regulations have compelled many U.S. and multinational firms to reduce or shut down their Venezuelan operations.″

These may not amount to completely planned economy, but they do add up to something much closer to Soviet-style socialism than to a mixed market economy. Although "corruption, and a volatile regulatory framework" may be interpreted in different ways, depending upon the system's constitution, who holds the power over the regulations (Party, State, or private interests such as lobbyists or businesses), who interprets their actions as corrupt (and why) rather than exercise of power over those regulations (again, the constitution and laws in question are relevant to this issue).

But this State Department article does not focus on the economic system of governance, but rather the bilateral relationship between Venezuela and the United States - it is not a good source for answring this question.

Although there is a strong case to be made that, one way or another, Venezuela might fall to the Resource Curse, the change in the economic system certainly contributed to the Crisis in Venezuela and came from one wing of the left "represented by Chavez and his party PSUV, self-defined as Marxist-Leninist, openly associated with Fidel Castro."

All around the world, this move to socialism was celebrated by left-leaning and Marxist thought leaders. Many of these same thought leaders deflect from the idea that it is a socialist country today, but at its inception, they celebrated the new experiment with this economic system. For example, ″On Venezuela, what you’re likelier to read is that the crisis is the product of corruption, cronyism, populism, authoritarianism, resource-dependency, U.S. sanctions and trickery, even the residues of capitalism itself. ... Curiously, that’s not how the Venezuelan regime’s admirers used to speak of “21st century socialism,” as it was dubbed by Hugo Chávez. The late Venezuelan president, said Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn, “showed us there is a different and a better way of doing things. It’s called socialism, it’s called social justice, and it’s something that Venezuela has made a big step toward.” Noam Chomsky was similarly enthusiastic when he praised Chávez in 2009. “What’s so exciting about at last visiting Venezuela,” the linguist said, is that “I can see how a better world is being created and can speak to the person who’s inspired it.”″

It can be argued that the Crisis was caused by socialist policies: everything from shortages to the rampant corruption emerged as a result of the policies of the new system introduced by Chávez.

″Many in the media have blamed Venezuela’s worsening humanitarian crisis on corruption, mismanagement, falling oil prices, or U.S sanctions—anything but the rise of socialism in what was once the wealthiest country in South America. Yet corruption and mismanagement were the direct result of increased government control of the economy—socialism—and in reality, lower oil prices and U.S. sanctions have little to do with the crisis. Instead, the mass starvation and exodus faced by Venezuelans are the natural consequence of the socialist policies implemented by dictators Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro.″

There are indeed similarities and past precedents to look to for support for this position. As throughout the Cold War, this has been a disputed topic, with others blaming currency mismanagement, the price of oil, sanctions, and other factors - although even in that story, price controls and subsidies (which were extreme and apparently rooted in Marxist-Leninist ideology) play a key role:

″Many businesses and individuals were also willing to pay a premium to circumvent controls, either to avoid bureaucratic trade barriers or to safeguard the value of their capital, and a currency black market sprang up to cater for this demand. Where black-market dollars became part of the cost structure of basic goods, the profit margin between the cost of production and state-controlled prices narrowed or disappeared entirely, causing further damage to local production. Beyond undermining local businesses, these policies also created opportunities and incentives for corruption, which grew in attractiveness in step with economic distortions, creating a vicious cycle.″

Although the cause of the crisis may be in some dispute, the idea that Venezuela has a "mixed market" economy should not be disputed but recognized as outright false. It should be labeled as socialism of some sort, particularly as the government itself celebrates it as "21st Century Socialism" and the significant policy sea-change was based around the ideology of Marxism-Leninism. Economi3 (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the assertion. Thanks for your input. danielkueh (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I agree that the given ref didn't support the claim, but how isn't Venezuela a market-based mixed economy, or simply a mixed economy, if you have problem with market-based? It may not be a mixed economy in the sense of blending [...] free markets with state interventionism but may certainly be in the sense of blending elements of market economies with elements of planned economies and private enterprise with public enterprise, for as far as I'm aware neither the market nor private ownership have been abolished; so Venezuela can be considered socialist only in the Austrian sense; in the Austrian sense, the Western world is somewhat socialist too, but they call it mixed economies because they're actually growing and wealthy, so that can't be associated with socialism (which must be associated with failure, genocide and famines), even if they all have many policies that Austrians would consider socialist and which have considered outright socialist when it was about socialist regimes that failed. God forbid calling Venezuela capitalist, capitalist mixed economy or state capitalist, even if it maintains most of capitalist characteristic (private ownership, markets, wage labour, etc.) and simply has a populist or hyper-populist government which claims to be socialist.--Davide King (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * See "Is socialism to blame for Venezuela's never-ending crisis?" by Asa Cusack, an expert on Latin America and frequent contributor to mainstream media.
 * "First, it is important to realise that Chavez chose to call his transformative project "21st-century socialism", but Venezuela's economy remained market-based and private-sector dominated throughout his time in office.
 * "Though the social economy and the public sector were heavily promoted - including through nationalisation - the private sector was expected to remain dominant, and it did. A centrally planned socialist economy like Cuba's was neither the aim nor the reality."
 * The conclusion that Venezuela does not have a capitalist economy has no basis in fact.
 * TFD (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * At first I thought this was TL;DR, but you got me. While in practice it is true that there still is a private sector, it's also important to not forget the government measures and control. Besides the ones mentioned, I would note price controls. In the last years, this sector has been more and more restricted, which in turn has caused the economy to shrink. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The U.S. had price controls under the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, and this approach was quite common in capitalist countries until the rise of neoliberalism in the 1980s. If you think there was no difference in the economies of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. in the 1970s, then the Venezuela is a socialist state views makes sense. But in fact, Chavez tried to return to the post war consensus in economics, not to emulate the Soviet Union. Incidentally, oil was nationalized long before the chavistas came to power. TFD (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Price controls of a specific product or that are temporal (let's say, including some of the applied during the current pandemic) should not be mistaken with broad regulations that are a response to, for instance, chronic inflation or shortages. The former can be described as keynesian or social democratic, and it should be mentioned that there were also widely applied during the puntofijismo before Chávez. I don't want to go in depth into economic theory, but my point and what I want to argue is that naming Venezuela as a "mixed economy" probably isn't completely accurate either. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * According to an article in Bloomberg (April 25, 2020), the reason for price controls is to control inflation, which is the same reason other capitalist countries impose price controls. Note that in Communist states, where government owns the means of production and supply, it sets prices in the same way private companies do in capitalist countries. Therefore there is no need for price controls. TFD (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's really interesting., how is mixed economy not completely accurate either? Venezuela is neither a free-market capitalist economy nor a centrally planned socialist economy (which is usually what is mean when saying socialist, basically the Soviet Union et all), so it is indeed a mixed economy in this sense (again, you did not disprove that there is still private property, wage labour, markets, etc.). To add what The Four Deuces wrote, even for so-called Communist states there is a debate and the state-capitalist view. Another relevant comment from The Four Deuces:
 * The same applies to the Soviet Union. While their system is frequently referred to as socialism, only Marxist-Leninists consider it to be so in reality. The issue is whether or not the economy was in the control of the Soviet working class and whether the Communist Party of the Soviet Union represented them in a democratic way. And the same applies to Bismark's state socialism or to reference any other capitalist society as socialist.
 * It seems to be that in the neoliberal era the post-war consensus is socialism (many policies that were normal and that some left-wing social democrats are proposing today are considered far-left, radical, socialist) but also isn't socialism because it was actually the period with the highest growth and less inequality than today (just to clarify, I believe the post-war consensus was still capitalism). So it seems to be that Venezuela is socialist only in the Austrian sense where price controls, central banking, etc. are socialist policies in themselves; or socialist in the sense that since it failed, it was socialist the whole time. Austrians cannot have it both ways, deeming policies common in the capitalist world as socialist but then referring only to socialist regimes as socialist.--Davide King (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Venezuela is not socialist only for these reasons. We have to remember the Bolivarian Missions, which not only expanded measures such as free healthcare and education (which existed in welfare states and already existed before Chávez), but also instituted programs that included free housing owned by the state and land redistribution. The expropiations, which have been characteristic of the Bolivarian Revolution, have already been mentioned, and the state currently has several enterprises of food production and distribution, including Agroisleña, PDVAL and Mission Mercal, just to name some. If I'm not mistaken, this is currently bigger than the private sector. Last but not least, it also also worth mentioning that Chávez promoted communal councils and cooperatives. I beg to differ, but the Venezuelan economy can be described as socialist not only in the Austrian sense of the word. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * --Jamez42 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy says that we must report the conclusions of experts, not our own based on synthesis. Land redistribution is not uncommon in capitalist countries and ironically was not carried out by Stalinists, who collectivized farming. And even the United States has public housing. And as you pointed out, even in capitalist countries, government subsidizes education and health care. The most you can say is that the chavistas rejected the neo-liberal model and opted for post war consensus economics. Add to that a degree of client politics where wealth is shoveled to their supporters, which again is typical in capitalist countries. TFD (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just going to link my answer from your talk page as is long and I do not want to cause disruption by adding it in full here, in addition to ping and tell you that you can get a better and shorter answer when that is exactly what happened, thank you very much. Anyway, here is the link to the full reply. The Four Deuces, do you think some qualifier about the type of the economy could be added? If so, what qualifier have you found supported in sources? Market-based mixed economy, mixed economy, capitalist economy, what else?--Davide King (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not basing this arguments in a synthesis, but rather just illustrating with some examples. A significant amount of outlets and scholars have referred to Venezuela's economy as "socialist". However, I can understand if there are different interpretations of the situation, where an additional explanation could be included. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think any reputable sources have called the economy socialist, although they may have called the government and its policies socialist. TFD (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Austrians don't consider price controls to be socialist. Price controls are interventions in the market economy, whereas Austrians typically consider socialism to mean state ownership of the means of production. So public schools would be an example of socialism to an Austrian, but not price controls or tariffs or subsidies or other forms of intervention in the market economy. Central banking would be considered socialist.
 * On the topic at hand, Ludwig von Mises argued that a key determining factor in deciding whether a nation is socialist or capitalist is the existence of a stock exchange. He was talking about Hungary at the time, but Caracas has a stock exchange. Meistro1 (talk) 10:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

from what i been hearing so far about Venezuela the country is so in aspect of business areas
i suggested that the government of Venezuela should pay attention on the business man in the country so that the citizens will be okay and they won't be any problems from the citizens 102.90.47.126 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

GDP numbers off by 1000X?
I see the GDP and GDP PPP listed as 96,000 BILLION (96 Trillion) and 216,000 BILLION (216 Trillion). Should that not be "million" or 96.000 / 216.000? 71.178.27.6 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)