The main reason it's like that is because they invested so much in oil, and when the price of oil saw a major drop it crashed the economy. Also don't nitpick. Look at Scandinavian countries. They all prosper. Same thing the other way. Brazil is capitalist and has the 9th largest economy in the world, but poverty is out of control over there.

My dad and i were just discussing this very thing. Venezuela has the resources to be one of the most well-off countries in the world. But thanks to socialism....

It shows yet again that socialism is a failure.

Venezuela's economy has long been largely dependent on oil. The market collapse in the 80's hurt the country's economy very badly, and by enacting several capitalistic changes to the already damaged economy, inflation, unemployment, and poverty soared in the 90's. This, along with the banking crisis Venezuela suffered in '94, leaves the country's economy to be an absolute shit storm. Said shit storm does not work with socialism, because as you can readily see from any country with a successful, socialistic economy, their success is dependent on high participation (low unemployment) and an aggressive market. Venezuela has neither of these, so it follows that socialism will not benefit the country. Imagine a ball of snow, that you roll down a hill to increase in size. Your argument is basically, "look how big that ball of snow is, that really sucks for anyone caught under it," neglecting how the ball got so big in the first place.

It shows that economic freedom is important, just as some limitations on the way businesses operate to maintain things like public health are also important. It's a balance. They broke the balance.

Venezuela has corrupt leaders

Venezuela put all its eggs in one basket. Their failure says nothing about socialism in an actual balanced economic system

They also banned GMOs, so there agricultural yields will drop, and crops will be harder to grow. Fools.

Simply beutiful https://youtu.be/8RlZJpg298w

How do you not know the difference between a mild-socialist economic system and a pure-socialist economic system? Everybody knows that unregulated Capitalism is great for bringing countries out of poverty. But once a 3rd world country becomes industrialized, it needs a light balance of socialism to combat the innate feudalistic part of capitalism that will never correct itself. Cuba just legalized small & medium sized private businesses with heavy restrictions that protect worker rights. Socialism is on a spectrum and pointing out Venezuela's failure does not delegitimize Germany's success.

I love the use of the lowest socialized country to prove your point. Shall we also present Capitalism with the poorest capitalist country out there? Also if im not mistaken, many south american countries (capitalist or socialist) are generally poor

Well all our types of government have flaws. Communism is called bad because of the soviets, and since they failed we assume capitalism is better. But this is not the case. Our governments do not follow Adam Smiths ideas (creator of capitalism) word to word. Neither did the soviets. China actually skipped the workers revolt thing so it's not actually good communism. But America is a democratic socialist country

Look at the UK.

A socialist government works similarly to a business. You build it up, you pay your workers while they continue to operate it. Every person plays an equal part in building it, and the people at the top reap the benefits. Though they are the managers. While there may be hostility towards the managers for getting the better end of the financial stick, without them, it all collapses. Venezuela is an example of a poorly managed socialism. While I don't agree with full scale socialism (communism), I support ideas rooted from socialism. I think it's vital to a society to have social security, public transportation, and universal health care. Things like this promote a positive attitude towards their government, knowing that you work for the government and that they give back, which is vital to the prosperity of a nation. [quote]A ship cannot move forward if half of it is rowing the wrong way. [/quote] While I find your views of libertarianism to be interesting, I fail the see the true advancement of a society when people can run rampant with little to no consequence. Obviously the extreme of libertarian is anarchist, which I'm sure you're not getting at, however to be so against socialist ideals, and to question the legitimacy of them, is considerably foolish. I do like the some ideas of libertarianism such as full freedom of speech and religion as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of others directly, but that's just it, it takes a police force to in force that "no infringement" part. Police is a socialist idea. Why is free health care so far off? It protects people who would otherwise be left behind. Why not protect the people in their country, so they might protect you. Socialism can't exist without libertarianism, and vice versa. Otherwise we would only have depressing communism, and a savage anarchy.

On the topic of democracy, Venezuela is as much of a democracy as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Sounds like the US needs to pretend Venezuela has WMDs so they can invade and steal their oil.

But meh socialism. We git it rite wen weez dooz it tho. Ugh. Socializum is guud and is bestest. Ugh u fascist. Ugh

A model for us all! If only every country had that level of togetherness and community!

So what you saying is if president is not the marionette put in place by US government he does not have right to be one?

1. the GDP of Venezuela is literally nothing compared to the USA. 2. The USA economy is vastly diversified while Venezuela is solely dependent on oil. No matter what government they had it was always going to expand or contract solely on the price of oil. So basically you're comparing apples to onions. [spoiler]thanks for playing[/spoiler]