Mediaboss Marketing

Robert Robb, The Arizona Republic Opinion Published 6:00 a.m. ET Aug. 11, 2017 | Updated 7:55 a.m. ET Aug. 11, 2017

In Caracas, Venezuela(Photo: Ronaldo Schemidt)

Venezuela offers an excellent illustration of how the U.S. compulsion tointervene in all the worlds trouble spotsoften strategically backfires.

The country is providing a timely lesson about how socialism wrecks an economy and how true socialism has a tendency to suffocate democracy as well.

These truths were masked during Hugo Chvezs time by sky-high oil prices. The state-owned oil company Petrleos de Venezuela or PDVSA spun off sufficient revenue to pay for his domestic infrastructure and welfare programs.

More: Sen. Jeff Flake's new book draws the line between Trumpism and conservatism

More: We're lucky Trump is clueless about foreign policy: Robert Robb

But politicization of PDVSAs management has resulted in a sharp reduction in oil production. And the deep drop in oil prices has robbed his successor, Nicols Maduro, of the lucre to maintain the mask.

Under Maduro, the state has taken over increasing portions of the economy. Today, the army has become the nations grocer.

The country has suffered hyperinflation, currently estimated at 700%annually, for several years now.

The government has racked up sovereign debt it cannot repay. A default is imminent.

The people of Venezuela have clearly had enough. An opposition Congress was elected. But a regime-controlled court emasculated it. Maduroorchestrated a facade of an electionfor a Constituent Assembly to usurp it. The Constituent Assembly is looking like the worst of the French Revolution, without the beheadings.

But there are jailings and shootings of political opponents. The Constituent Assembly dutifully voted to sack the countrys attorney general, a devoutchavistawho couldnt stomach Maduros debauching of the countrys democratic processes. She escaped a hostile cordon on the back of a motorbike.

More: Shaky Trump team isn't ready for North Korea nuclear crisis

POLICING THE USA: A look atrace, justice, media

The claim by Maduro and the security forces of thechavistaregime is that all the countrys woes are the result of sabotage by the United States.

That, of course, is preposterous. Yet the United States keeps doing things that give the claim some semblance of credibility.

In 2014, Congress passed a bill permitting sanctions to be imposed, supposedly in defense of Venezuelan human rights and civil society. In 2015, the Obama administration imposed sanctions on a handful of government officials. Their U.S. assets, to the extent they had any, were frozen. They were forbidden from traveling to the United States, and U.S. persons were forbidden to do business with them.

The Trump administrationextended the sanctionsto another handful, including Maduro himself.Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has muttered about the desirability of regime change, which plays directly into Maduros domestic playbook.

And, in the usual neoconservative circles, there are calls for the U.S. to do even more to put pressure on the Maduro government. The big gun supposedly would be banning PDVSAs oil imports into the United States. The Trump administration is reportedly mulling the big gun.

Roughly 40%of PDVSAs exports are to the United States. While other buyers could probably be found, the disruption would be, it is claimed, a staggering blow that might topple the Maduro government and neuter thechavistasecurity forces that prop it up.

Now, Venezuela isof little direct security interestto the United States. Other than having to endure bombastic speeches by Chvez at the United Nations, the turmoil in Venezuela hasnt significantly affected us. Nor will it.

What happens next in Venezuela is impossible to project. But the notion that the United States can steer events in a productive direction by high-minded pronouncements or carefully calibrated sanctions is hubris.

All we can do for sure is get in the way and blur the lessons for the people of Venezuela and around the world. If the United States tries to punish or topple the Maduro government, then it cannot cleanly be proclaimed that it failed of its own accord. The inability of true socialism to produce economic wellbeing, and the threat it poses to democratic governance, will not be as transparently illustrated.

The United States does have a general strategic interest in the establishment and maintenance of democratic capitalism in Latin America. And the American people have a heart for the suffering of the people of Venezuela.

Individuals can act on that heart bycontributing to relief efforts. The United States government, however, serves best by trying to stay out of the story.

Robert Robb is a columnist for The Arizona Republic, where this piece wasfirst published.

You can read diverse opinions from ourBoard of Contributorsand other writers on theOpinion front page, on Twitter@USATOpinionand in our dailyOpinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2wOjyMt

View post:
What the US government should do about Venezuela: Nothing - USA TODAY

Conservative pundits fail to identify non-socialistic contributors to the catastrophe.

Now that Venezuela has descended into such chaos and misery that wars become a very real possibility, right-leaning pundits are saying, I told you so. To them, the current 700 percent inflation rate and dearth of basic necessities is the inevitable denouement to the same old socialist story that always starts off so full of hope of prosperity shared by all. Venezuelans are so hungry they're hunting dogs in the streets of Caracas and eating out of dumpsters, all because of Marxism. You can read countless articles on the topic, but too many of them are generic. They read as if a software program generated them.

Barton Hinkle, writingfor last Sundays Richmond Times-Dispatch, offers a prime example of this clich. Venezuela, he writes, provides... a stark warning for socialist sympathisers on the left. Then he explains that the current emergency state of that nation is the inevitable outcome of the Venezuelan government's policies. What he fails to address is that far more than merely socialist policies has contributed to this economic catastrophe.

Building your nations economy around an abundant, valuable commodity isn't a socialist principle, but that's exactly what Venezuela did when Hugo Chavez was in charge. It was a critical mistake, as one of the key reasons the nation can't escape from its economic death spiral is its lack of economic diversity. Now that oil prices have tanked, the petrodollars have dried up just like the food supply. Hinkle writes that socialism apologists blame low oil prices on the crisis, but that many nations depend on oil revenue and havent sunk to such depths as Venezuela. Maybe the problem lies elsewhere, he says.

The problem is multi-faceted, but Hinkle only mentions the ones that fit his storyline. While he makes valid points about socialisms role in wrecking the Venezuelan economy, and calls out useful Hollywood idiots like Sean Penn and Michael Moore for mooning over the Venezuelan socialist paradise, there's much more to the story than hes letting on. The economy of what was not long ago the wealthiest nation in South America hasn't crashed and burned simply because of socialism. If it did, then why aren't the citizens of Bernie Sanders beloved Sweden losing 19 poundsper year like Venezuelans? Some might argue that Sweden isn't really a socialist country because the state hasn't nationalized the means of production. It provides all the free stuff that the same people go on about when attacking socialism. They can't then turn around and say Swedens not a socialist country because they're eager to prove another point.

Scandinavian democratic socialism is one form of socialism, and Venezuela has another. Chavezs, in many ways looks more like Bonapartism than socialism. Bonapartism (a term birthed in 19th-century French politics) describes a situation in which the upper classes are exploiting the have-nots, and a military, police, and state bureaucracy intervenes to establish balance. Under such a regime, there's a new sheriff in town whos going to crack down on the elites and make sure the common people are provided for. The proleteriat make a bargain to sacrifice their agency in exchange for economic security. Chavez, nicknamed "el Comandante, was a former military officer with a strong authoritarian streak that was tempered by populist rhetoric. He was right out of Bonapartist central casting.

Chavez, obsessed with power, curtailed media freedom and put his opponents in prison. He supported gangs that disseminated propaganda and physically intimidated poor communities. Any person or institution he wanted to get was an agent of American imperialism. Chavez built his power base around a cult of personality, and kept his ties with the military as insurance. Dictatorial wielding of power is not inherent to socialism, but it's been a major factor in dooming Venezuela's failed experiment in 21st Century Socialism.

Hinkle, by way of explaining why socialism alone has wrecked a once-thriving nation, quotes three paragraphs verbatim, written by Dario Pays, former Chilean ambassador to the Organization of American States. In short, socialists want to spread wealth so they print cash because that's easy. This weakens the currency, prices spike, so they impose price controls, which disincentivizes businesses to produce things for sale. Then the government takes over the business and runs them poorly, and when there's unrest, the government responds tyrannically.

The above scenario has, in fact, played out in Venezuela, but that still doesn't mean that socialism itself has produced hyperinflation and all those empty shelves in Venezuela grocery stores. Why has Sweden averaged only 3.58 percent inflation from 1980 to 2017 with all the free stuff it's handing out? Nicols Maduro is now President of Venezuela, but he inherited Chavez mess. It was Chavezs socialism/Bonapartism hybrid that sucked the life out of Venezuelan democracy and weakened its institutions to the point where the nations not strong enoughto pull itself out of an abyss. When a cult of personality, rather than just an ideological set of ideas, brings on a political disaster, you can't blame it all on the ideas.

See original here:
Venezuela's Not Simply a Failure Of Socialism - Splice Today

I am increasingly of the opinion that the basis for the inflamed, visceral hatred of President Donald Trump in some quarters is neither his occasional vulgarity, nor his propensity to toss out un-presidential insults, nor the misogyny and sexism that the left pretends to see in his every word.

Rather, its that his presidency has torn the veil off of the lefts inexorable and until recently largely obscured march toward a socialist America. Trump has exposed and discredited many of the institutions and mechanisms the left uses to execute its fundamental transformation: the media, the entertainment industry and academia.

Furthermore, he is an unabashed capitalist, a walking manifestation of American achievement through commerce.

And for this, they despise him.

Health care is a pristine example of the battle being waged. Obamacare is collapsing. The GOP is too terrified to repeal it. Democrats know that its failure, particularly in the absence of legitimate free market alternatives, will virtually ensure the single-payer system theyre now openly pushing.

Single-payer is a recipe for failure and abuse. (Exhibits 1 and 2: the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Services.) Except in relatively small, largely homogenous populations, collectivism fails because in the absence of financial incentives, more people want to receive things than want to make or provide them. The government must therefore insert itself into every transaction: You must make X. You can only charge $Y. You only get so much of Z.

Thus does single-payer health care morph from being a provision system to a rationing system. And those who control the rations control the people.

There is plenty historical evidence of socialisms disasters, most recently in Venezuela. Detractors will no doubt scoff: The Venezuelan government took over most private enterprise; theres no indication that such a thing would ever happen here.

However, socialist and communist regimes tend expand not because they succeed, but because they fail.

Those who espouse the glories of collectivism in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary are ideologues. And ideologues never accept defeat. Instead of admitting the collapse of a failing business model, the lefts impulse is to take it larger: We just need more money. We need higher taxes. We need the government to take control of more.

This produces larger, systemic failure, and more widespread misery. Then cometh the political oppression. To preserve the regime, it becomes necessary to silence anyone who complains or dares to point out the painfully obvious truth that these ideas destroy whatever systems they infect. Ordinary citizens starve. If they are entrepreneurs or industrialists, their businesses are stolen. Members of government are removed in fraudulent elections, run out of town or arrested on trumped-up charges and imprisoned.

When no one in power will face reality, there are few options left, and they are almost always catastrophic: civil war, revolution, anarchy.

Failed policies. Collapsed economies. Political repression. The examples are so numerous as to strain credulity: Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, China, Cambodia, East Germany, Angola, Somalia, the former Soviet Union. Hellholes created under siren promises that government would provide everything for free.

So much suffering, and so avoidable.

But were not supposed to know any of that. Our educational system is supposed to be indoctrinating children to think that capitalism is greed and collectivism is compassion. The media willingly conspires to keep us ignorant. (The New York Times is running a series that The Federalist author Robert Tracinski rightly decries as an effort to rehabilitate Communism. Lenin and the Bolsheviks were well-intentioned people trying to build a better world out of a crisis? Little has changed since the days of Walter Duranty, apparently.) Millionaire entertainers dutifully spout politburo propaganda in exchange for escaping the accusations of hypocrisy that should accompany their sky-high incomes and royal lifestyles.

As middle-class voters are realizing, Democrats have been pushing their party in this direction for decades. Republicans (at least at the Congressional level) suck their thumbs and pretend it isnt happening, whilst falling for the bipartisanship ploy that makes them ineffectual fools even when as now they hold political power.

Donald Trump may not have intended to be the man who pulled down the curtain, but pull it he did. He has become the face of the opposition to the plans of the cultural elite. For that he must be destroyed.

Ultimately, however, the lefts war isnt with Trump. It is with those of us who see socialisms failures, and who refuse to sit back and watch while our freedoms are dismantled and our country is destroyed.

Laura Hollis is a nationally syndicated conservative columnist.

See more here:
Hollis: Socialism's Failures and the War Against Trump - Casper Star-Tribune Online

Some time ago, the Cherokee Tribune published Roger Hines weekly column, a column the Tribune titled Shared Poverty. Hines condensed into 750 words one of the best essays on socialism ever written.

In addition, it provided for the average American the best description of how capitalism came to America as the best engine of prosperity and wealth the world has ever known. Capitalism, not socialism, provides every human being an equal opportunity to gain and preserve both their freedom and wealth.

Hines also took to task Americas higher education system and how it has rejected capitalism in favor of socialism, thus fanning the flames that always led to corruption and the eventual self-destruction of those nations that reject capitalism in favor of socialism.

Socialism is a softer word for communism. Hines mentioned that Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, just three months before Thomas Jefferson created Americas Declaration of Independence. Was that a coincidence or was it a divine message to the Founders who were in the process of creating Americas economic engine?

Another coincidence: Edward Gibbons published his Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire in 1787 the same year the Founders created Americas Tree of Liberty, Americas unique Constitution.

I dont believe either of these great books were coincidences. Both were published with divine guidance, the first to establish America on one of Gods great natural laws the law of economic competition, the right of individuals to create for themselves, with minimum government interference, through study and hard work, the life best suited for them.

Americas role: to be the example of freedom to the worlds enslaved and downtrodden. I firmly believe that Smiths Wealth of Nations and Gibbons Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire were both inspired by Jeffersons Creator, with Gibbons book written as a warning to America of what would happen if America followed in the footsteps of the ancient Romans.

As I read Hines column, Detroit came to mind. Detroit was in the early 1900s the worlds premier example of how capitalism had brought prosperity to the masses. But in the 1950s, Detroit chose a socialistic government and in July 2013 Detroit filed for bankruptcy, $18 billion in debt with only $1 billion in assets.

Detroit is the perfect example of how socialism destroys from within. I once worked in those factories that turned out automobiles by the millions and war materials during both world wars. Detroit, as a capitalist city, played a major role in helping defeat the Axis powers during both wars and in preserving freedom and liberty for the worlds enslaved.

The only thing Hines did not mention in his column was that socialism is not only an equal divider of poverty, but that it also kills. He mentioned how Russia, the epitome of socialism/communism during the last century, failed to feed its people but he forgot to mention that socialism also kills.

Success! An email has been sent with a link to confirm list signup.

Error! There was an error processing your request.

Stalin, to gain total control of Russia killed the intellectuals and capitalists; over 30 million were killed with additional millions sent to Siberia to die in concentration camps.

Nor did Hines mention China, but beginning in the 1950s Mao began his brutal and destructive war again Chinas capitalistic state. Over the next few decades Mao murdered 50 million Chinese. I dont think socialism is what Americans want.

When I worked on the assembly lines in Detroits auto shops, for a dollar an hour, it was my introduction to the world of work. Detroit was a magnet for the unemployed throughout the Midwest and Eastern Canada. My familys farm was 120 miles north of Detroit and I and dozens of neighbor boys would find work in the Detroit plants, providing us with dollars not available locally.

In addition, millions were spent by startup companies in building support shops throughout the Michigan area where local farmers could find work to support their farming operations, as did I in 1954 after returning from serving in the Korean War.

As the family historian, I researched my family from throughout Ontario and then traced their migrations to Michigan where they found jobs in Detroits auto plants. That Detroit is now gone with all its glitter and wealth. Only Detroits skeleton remains; destroyed by its leaders ignoring the laws of Nature and of Natures God. Socialism truly is Poverty Equally Divided!

Roger Hines classic column should be required reading for every graduating student in America, then tested on the principles of the economic freedoms he spelled out so clearly in his column.

Donald Conkey is a retired agricultural economist in Woodstock.

See the article here:
DONALD CONKEY: Socialism never the answer - Cherokee Tribune Ledger News

J.P.Floru is a Westminster City councillor and author of The Sun Tyrant: A Nightmare called North Korea.

Many parents despair when they see their children vote for a system which would not only destroy their savings, but also their childrens future. We see 20 year olds with 700 IPhones march for Marxism. Children, who grew up in the house their parents worked hard to buy, tweet against private property. Oil-rich Venezuela is in the poor house and in flames thanks to Marxism, yet our young think Jeremy Corbyn is cool.

What can parents do? Avoid reading Robin Hood as a bedtime story? I asked around, and came up with a few answers.

I must add a disclaimer. We should be careful not to see the young as a collective body of Labour voters. The general election gives a skewed impression, since Corbyns tuition fee con misled many. Large herds of left-wing activists occupy social media but how many in the world out there are actually swayed by it? Not every millennial is a snowflake, gagging for a safe space where their tender feelings will not be offended but this makes for good social media stories. There is ample evidence that the young are in fact not socialists, but quite right-wing libertarian.

Teachers are often blamed. Several polls found that they are far more left-wing than the average voter: one YouGov survey found that 57 per cent of teachers vote Labour, and only 16 per cent Conservative. But is this new? I remember walking out of my class as a 13 year old a few decades ago, when my mathematics teacher was explaining why everybody should earn the same salary. He was an avowed communist. This at a Catholic public school. Socialist teachers have been around for decades.

Yet all the left-wing teachers in the world, for many decades, have not been able to wipe out right-wing beliefs among at least some of the young. Why are there still some right-wing pupils left?

I asked around, and came up with four explanations.

1 Rebellion

Jacob Rees-Mogg believes that teenagers are naturally rebellious. Pupils would be likely to oppose figures of authority, such as teachers.

The strange thing is that pupils generally do not object to non-teaching figures of authority, such as left-wing pop stars or actors. In fact, pop stars and actors seem to be more successful in dragging young people into socialism than teachers or professors.

2 Inoculation

Michael Clark, a barrister, believes that children are effectively innoculated by their parents. Long before they attend school, children from normal households will have heard the views of their parents. The children may reject those views, but at least they will be cognisant of them. When your child comes home from school with the teachers communist beliefs, you can offer an alternative view.

This is not about counter-brainwashing your children into right-wing thinking, but rather making them aware that there is an intelligent argument for it, and that they have a choice. Parents should take the time to do this.

3 Objective truth

Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute says that young people are generally intelligent enough to realise that the right-wing view of the world is the correct view. Free market economics work; socialism doesnt. Marxism, that invented ideology which never worked anywhere, has a tough sell. One only has to look at Venezuela: a prosperous society which was turned into a beggar state after a few decades of socialism. Teachers are but one source of information for the young.

4 Understanding personal economics

Another explanation is something I learned myself. Parents can teach their children the values of work, saving, and financial prudence. Later, the children will realise that the states budget is but a macro version of their own. When the great Margaret Thatcher explained the nations economy through the imagery of her fathers corner shop, she was onto something.

How to instil financial responsibility and a work ethic into your children? Its pretty easy. Never give your children anything for free. Reward them when they work. Encourage them to seek summer jobs. Give them a very small weekly allowance, but never pay for any toys, etc upon demand. The small weekly sum will teach them to save, and to postpone gratification.

And what about sharing? Make sure that your child realises that he or she is free to share or not. By all means tell them it would be a good idea, and morally recommendable, but never force them. Never make them share as a matter of course. And never ever take your childs private property away except in the most extreme circumstances.

Never allow micro-communism to creep into your household. It will seem tough to the young person, as it was for me when my parents did precisely that. I thought it was unfair when, for example, I had to contribute to buy a new bicycle which I used to go to school; or to buy the desired box of lego. Yet decades later, my account has never been in the red. I never expect anybody else to subsidise my lifestyle. And I have limitless admiration for people who make it in the free market economy and no time at all for socialist rantings.

Continue reading here:
JPFloru: How to inoculate your children against socialism - Conservative Home