Why is Venezuelan Socialism failing so badly while Danish Socialism is successful?

Why is Venezuelan Socialism failing so badly while Danish Socialism is successful?

Other urls found in this thread:

nationalreview.com/corner/422084/why-sweden-isnt-venezuela-kevin-d-williamson
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

nationalreview.com/corner/422084/why-sweden-isnt-venezuela-kevin-d-williamson

Denmark isn't under sanctions from the US

...

Because the US isnt subsidizing Venezuela like it does with Europe.

Western socialism only exists because they are leaching off the US.

Denmark isn't run by a bus driver, either

Because only white people are smart enough

the real reason behind it is simply corruption, and the stupidity of the Venezuelan population for electing people with more than obvious links to drugs trafficking as their leaders. Combine that with being the most richest country in resources and you immediately have the situation where everyone near to power thinks they're entitled to get their "fair share" of those resources, they practically stole 95% of the 285 billions that were made in the 17 years of "chavism" off petroleum exports. Most of the people in power were smart enough to leave to other countries with the money made untraceable and nwo are living like kings while the people who thought that they'll never get caught and such situation wouldn't change ever are now ruling with no money, indictments on them and the feeling that as soon as they leave the power they'll have to be accountable for what they've done, so following their logic; they don't care about the well being of their people as long as their asses won't be in prison for as long as possible.

Denmark isn't socialist though. Socialism requires the nationalization of various industries in the nation which Denmark hasn't done, but Venezuela has. Denmark is just a welfare state.

white people live in Denmark

>Talk to a Bernie Sanders voter about “socialism” — and they can be very insistent about using the word — and you’ll get paeans to Sweden, which is not a socialist country but a country with large, expensive welfare state.

That is what we moderates have been trying tell you conservatards for years! For years, we have been meet with, "universal healthcare is socialism." This is what you conservatards get. You have been saying that social welfare of any kind is socialism and the young, idiotic voters listened to you. How could they not? Conservatards have been threatening to and have been slashing social welfare on the reason of "socialism." You created this meme. Now reap it.

Denmark is ruled by a right wing coalition

Because Venezuela is a nation of retards who elected an autistic bus driver because their mulatto god handpicked him and their national sport is breast implants. I'm so glad I have an italian name so no one in US knows I'm venezuelan

>A highly productive modern capitalist economy can withstand a fair amount of welfare-statism, as Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, the United States, and others demonstrate.
Agreed. Capitalism is the best means of generating taxes which can be used for social welfare.

>What it cannot bear very much of is proper socialism, which is to say government ownership and operation of the means of production.
OH, MY, YES! FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS.
For years, moderates have been saying. And for years, conservatards have insisted that social welfare = socialism.

this

venezuela's economy is based exclusively on oil exports.
when your economy crashes that hard it doesn't really mater what poliitical or economic system you have
the country is fucked

>If you’re going to have a welfare state, what you want is one in which your welfare programs simply enable higher levels of consumption among the people you’re trying to help rather than one in which government tries to actually manage enterprises.
Agreed.
>The classical example here is food stamps. The federal nutrition program may be rife with fraud and low-level corruption, but it doesn’t have much effect on the actual underlying economic activity of farming, food processing, etc. (To the extent that it distorts real economic activity, it does so mainly at the retail level.) You can live with a little bit of corruption, but you can’t live without food.

>It isn’t that difficult to subsidize the poor — if you’re willing to pay for it. All you have to do, really, is levy the tax and cut the check or issue the voucher.
>We disagree about how much welfare-statism we want, but we ought to agree that however much we have our programs should be structured more like SNAP and less like the Venezuelan groceries.
These people are speaking my language.

Who is this "National Review"? I thought they were right-wing? They are making so much sense.

>Denmark
>"Don't call us socialist"
That Denmark?

You keep saying "conservatards," but what you're quoting reflects badly on Bernie supporters while saying nothing about conservatives. You seem confused.

Shitskins.

Oh, I know what I said. Bernouts are part of the problem as well.

I'm talking about the conservatards on Sup Forums, on conservative subreddits, basically on any conservative forum, who have been saying any government run program, especially social welfare. That "ObamaCare is socialism." Heck, some of the most hardliners have even said that public schools are akin to socialism. You can't deny that this kind of rhetoric rife on Fox News and with the Tea Party Republicans and their blogosphere.

>why does leeching work in a first-world continent but not an irrelevant shit hole that nobody cares about

Because Denmark is not socialist, you dumb fucking burger.

Fucks sake, when is this meme gonna die?