Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Venezuela's Market Counterrevolution
Some interesting results from the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey. Bloomberg reports:
Latin Americans increasingly support free markets as economic growth boosts income across the continent, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed.
Market support is greatest in Venezuela, where 72 percent of respondents agreed ``most people are better off in a free market economy,'' up from 63 percent in 2002, as President Hugo Chavez deepens his socialist policies, the poll said. About 65 percent of Brazilians, 60 percent of Chileans and 55 percent of Mexicans also said most people benefit from free markets.
Yup, you read that right: Support for the free market is highest in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
|7.31.07 @ 4:43PM|#
Only "55 percent of Mexicans also said most people benefit
from free markets."
The numbers for Mexico may be depressed because the ones who
believe in free markets tend to move northward to work in freer
markets.
|7.31.07 @ 4:44PM|#
You mean Pat Buchanan lied to me when he said that Latinos
couldn't understand markets and limited government enough to allow
them to immigrate? There's a shocker.
Let people in other countries alone, they'll come around.
It's screwing with them that makes them rally around Dear
Leader.
Christopher Monnier|7.31.07 @ 4:52PM|#
I wonder what the percentage of Americans would be who think that "most people are better off in a free market economy." I bet it would be less than 72%...
Sal Paradise|7.31.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Do I need to remind you that Hugo Chavez was popularly elected? After that, anything goes. Sheesh.
|7.31.07 @ 5:00PM|#
I wonder what the percentage of Americans would be who think
that "most people are better off in a free market economy." I bet
it would be less than 72%
agreed
|7.31.07 @ 5:10PM|#
Maybe the way they heard the question was
"People are better off if things are free at the market."
|7.31.07 @ 5:11PM|#
I had thought that most Latin Americans were against free markets, because their experience of it was that one time that the International Amalgamated United Fruit Corporation took over the government back in '15. Good to see that's changing.
Edward|7.31.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Now what could prevent a libertarian fanatic who is incapable of making a rational assessment of Ron Paul's electoral chances from jumping to the conclusion that because most Latin Americans think that free markets are good, they will also think that completely unregulated markets with minimal government and no taxation will be even a better? My guess is aboslutely nada.
|7.31.07 @ 5:22PM|#
Nothing brings about a love and respect for free markets like a few decades of socialist policies...
Sal Paradise|7.31.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Edward,
Maybe you should make a mat that had libertarian conclusions on it.
Then we could jump on said mat.
|7.31.07 @ 5:26PM|#
Market support is greatest in Venezuela, where 72 percent of
respondents agreed ``most people are better off in a free market
economy,'' up from 63 percent in 2002, as President Hugo Chavez
deepens his socialist policies, the poll said.
there's nothing like eating chickenfeet to focus the mind.
fyodor|7.31.07 @ 5:26PM|#
Edward,
Free markets are unregulated markets. Do you think
regulated speech is free speech?
That said, there's certainly the possibility that something's lost
in translation.
Edward|7.31.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Sal,
One doesn't jump on a conclusion, one jumps to it. Libertarians
have had so much practice jumping to conclusions that you don't
need a mat. Are you planning to attend Ron Paul's anauguration
ball?
fyodor|7.31.07 @ 5:38PM|#
I see fyodor. So we don't have free markets then.
That's correct. We have freeer markets here in the U.S.
than in a lot of places (a major reason for our wealth in
comparison to the rest of the world), but we still do have plenty
of regulation and too much government intrustion. You're beginning
to understand! :-)
Edward|7.31.07 @ 5:38PM|#
Fyodor,
What are the Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Trade
Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and antitrust laws
for?
Edward|7.31.07 @ 5:40PM|#
Sorry, Fyodor, my I posted my last post before I read yours. How do you know that no regulation of markets would make things better?
|7.31.07 @ 5:42PM|#
I'll bet if you ask the same group of people the question:
"Should the government control the high costs of healthcare,
gasoline, housing, clothing, food and water?", you'd get similar
poll results (i.e. a majority would be for it in every
country...including the U.S.)
Polls like this are so sensitive to the wording of the question(s)
that the results are essentially meaningless.
|7.31.07 @ 5:43PM|#
The numbers for Mexico may be depressed because the ones who
believe in free markets tend to move northward to work in freer
markets.
Or, they open shop on the underground markets, the last ones to be
truly free in Mexico ;-)
The only people in Latin American countries that do not believe in
free markets are either intellectuals (called "Sentimentals" by
Octavio Paz) and politicians, for the same reason their
counterparts in developed countries do not believe either - because
they are afraid of a free people.
|7.31.07 @ 5:44PM|#
What are the Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Trade
Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and antitrust laws
for?
Ooh! Ooh! Pick me!! To keep Edward from getting pop-culture-based
jokes?
|7.31.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Now what could prevent a libertarian fanatic who is
incapable of making a rational assessment of Ron Paul's electoral
chances from jumping to the conclusion that because most Latin
Americans think that free markets are good, they will also think
that completely unregulated markets with minimal government and no
taxation will be even a better?
Edward, your question is loaded. Try to rephrase it...
fyodor|7.31.07 @ 5:46PM|#
How do you know that no regulation of markets would make
things better?
I don't "know" it with quite the certainty that I "know" the sun
will rise in the east tomorrow morning, but I think Reason and
experience show it to be the most likely case.
If that seems brief and vague, pay me 20K and I'll teach you a
college level course on the matter.
|7.31.07 @ 5:47PM|#
Edward, serious question for you. Do you think Ron Paul has a chance of getting the Republican nomination?
|7.31.07 @ 5:47PM|#
I had thought that most Latin Americans were against free
markets, because their experience of it was that one time that the
International Amalgamated United Fruit Corporation took over the
government back in '15.
You're thinking of Honduras and maybe Nicaragua... But those are in
Central America only. Latin America spans almost all of America,
from Mexico to Argentina, and those countries never heard of United
Fruit.
|7.31.07 @ 5:48PM|#
If you ask anybody a question that sounds vaugly positive, people will say "yes". If you ask them something vaugly negative, people will say "no".
Edward|7.31.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Fyodor,
Could you cite some experience that makes you think completely
unregulated markets would be better?
|7.31.07 @ 5:50PM|#
How do you know that no regulation of markets would make
things better?
Edward, to what things are you referring, first? Because your
question is vague. An unregulated market is a question of
principles, that of human liberty and freedom (in that it is
unethical or immoral to place restrictions on voluntary
transactions done by rational people), and not a pragmatic one.
|7.31.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Another serious question for you, Edward. What is it like going through life not being able to detect sarcasm?
Edward|7.31.07 @ 5:54PM|#
Sorry, Jason. I've been reading so much ernest nonsense on this blog that my sarcasm detector is rusty.
|7.31.07 @ 5:54PM|#
I take it that English is not your native language.
I take it that such fact is irrelevant. What is your point?
Edward|7.31.07 @ 5:57PM|#
Francisco,
I couldn't make sense of your post and thought you might be more
coherent in your native language. That's all.
advocatus diaboli|7.31.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Just a question: The article notes that support for free markets
has grown alongside economic growth. But, hasn't a lot of that
economic growth happened under (more or less) socialist
regimes?
The article quotes a thinktank guy as saying, "The idea that there
are two diametrically opposed options, support for the poor and
support for free markets, is false." But, doesn't this just show
that people support free markets as they get wealthier? (And,
maybe, that they tend to support socialists when they are
poorer?)
I'm just kind of confused about the logic of the article. It seems
to be: People in socialist countries are getting wealthier and
turning away from socialism. That seems rather odd to me.
BTS|7.31.07 @ 6:23PM|#
"I couldn't make sense of your post and thought you might be
more coherent in your native language."
That may be the case...but are you gonna get anything out of what
he says in his native tounge? He's writing in English because it's
easier for people who speak English to understand English, even if
it isn't grammatically perfect, than it is for people who speak
English to understand some other language.
And yes, I am just assuming that you don't speak/understand
Francisco's first language.
Gahan|7.31.07 @ 6:24PM|#
Edward:
I understood Francisco's post fine. Way to intimidate foreigners,
though. Just out of curiosity, how many languages do you speak?
|7.31.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Just a question: The article notes that support for free
markets has grown alongside economic growth. But, hasn't a lot of
that economic growth happened under (more or less) socialist
regimes?
No.
BTS|7.31.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Everyone pile on Edward!
But seriously, Ed, it wasn't that hard to understand. Maybe all of
us here are too used to thinking in a libertarian mindset, but I
got the message behind what Francisco is saying.
I'll "translate" for you, since you are evidently in dire need of
assistance:
Unregulated markets are a matter of morality, not of what works
best for greatest number.
advocatus diaboli|7.31.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Grand Chalupa,
No.
Maybe I misunderstood something, but I thought "economic growth
boost[ing] income across the continent" included countries like
Venezuela and Brazil, the most socialist countries that come to
mind. Can you elaborate?
BTS|7.31.07 @ 6:40PM|#
Brazil is the most socialistic nation you can think of? That's
sad.
Cuba anyone? Or how 'bout Sweden?
|7.31.07 @ 6:44PM|#
It might be worth noting the Hugo Chavez was re-elected to
office in 2004. Even during the period when that number was rising,
Chavez continued to be extremely popular, and he hasn't been
terribly shy about describing his politics.
Bottom line: Venezuelans saying they support free markets are not
generally going to pass the libertarian purity test.
highnumber|7.31.07 @ 6:45PM|#
No, Sweden is not one of the most socialist countries, from what
I know (not much).
Sweden does have a decently performing economy, dunnit?
advocatus diaboli|7.31.07 @ 6:45PM|#
OK, fine, Cuba is more socialist than Brazil, but they weren't
included in the report (to my knowledge) so I didn't include them.
And Sweden isn't in Latin America.
I just want to know if the regional economic growth Latin America
has been seeing has occured in socialist countries, and, if so, why
the people living there would be supporting free markets if
socialism has helped their economy.
|7.31.07 @ 6:46PM|#
Unexpected nuance in discussing political classifications.
Usually, they're all just collectivists.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 6:59PM|#
Could you cite some experience that makes you think
completely unregulated markets would be better?
I'm not fyodor. And none of us have experienced a completely
unregulated market, except for black market transactions that we
may or may not have participated in, but...
... I work in the relatively unregulated computer industry. If
you're participating in this blog, then you are probably aware that
the computing industry has had a pretty damned impressive run of
innovation and wealth creation.
advocatus diaboli|7.31.07 @ 7:10PM|#
Grr, no one's answered my question yet, asked in all
earnestness. But, here's a follow-up, and potential answer to my
own question:
Could the economies of (again, more or less) socialist countries in
Latin America have taken off because they were starting from shit?
That might explain how a control freak like Chavez might have
helped his country: it's easy to experience high GDP growth if you
don't have any to begin with (eg, the early days of the Soviet
Union).
advocatus diaboli|7.31.07 @ 7:11PM|#
er, "might explain how a control freak like Chavez might have helped his country's economy."
edna|7.31.07 @ 7:20PM|#
grab the first 50 people on the street in chavez-land, or for
that matter, in the usa or any of the eu counties and ask them to
define "free market economy." if more than 5 of them can, i'll eat
every electron in this blog and floss with a floppy disk.
these polls are less than useless. the vast majority of people
everywhere are nearly totally ignorant of the basics of science,
the basics of math, and the basics of economics.
fyodor|7.31.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Could you cite some experience that makes you think
completely unregulated markets would be better?
"Completely" unregulated markets are, of course, difficult to find,
as, human nature being what it is, people are so gung-ho to
regulate their neighbors. But evidence is everywhere that overall,
the freer the markets, the more prosperous the society that adopts
them. One example is this country. No, the markets are not entirely
free, but as I said already, they're freer than in most places, and
not uncoincidentally, this nation is more prosperous than most
places.
If a momentous shift to a "completely" unregulated economy is too
scary for you, I'll gladly move piecemeal in that direction rather
than merely accept the status quo.
robc|7.31.07 @ 7:34PM|#
I just want to make a point about "pragmatic" libertarianism. My end result I am hoping for is libery, thus anything that maximizes that, regardless of its affects on "efficiency" or "economy", is pragmatic. The pragmatism measuring stick is liberty.
|7.31.07 @ 7:35PM|#
Why do you hate freedom, Joe? ;)
Freedom killed my puppy when I was eight! *sob*
:-))
edna,
if more than 5 of them can, i'll eat every electron in this
blog and floss with a floppy disk.
Can we watch?
What are you wearing? ;-)
robc|7.31.07 @ 7:38PM|#
Costa Rica has the 2nd highest (at 12.5k behind Chile's 12.7k)
GDP-PPP in latin america and the highest # of elected Libertarians
(notice the large L) in their parliament of any country (in the
world?).
It also has a 7.9% growth rate vs Chile's 4.2% which means it
should pass them soon.
Discuss.
|7.31.07 @ 7:51PM|#
Are Costa Rica's Libertarians akin to the US LP? I ask because
in a lot of the non-anglophone world "libertarian" means anarchist
(as in, anti-state socialist).
Probably they're like US Libertarians, because I don't think
anarchists are in the habit of running for office anywhere. Some
deluded anarcho-capitalists notwithstanding.
Edward|7.31.07 @ 8:08PM|#
fyodor
Your libertairanism is actually a faith-based worldview. But hey,
if it gives meaning to your life, why not?
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 8:18PM|#
The Costa Ricans call themselves "Partido Movimiento Libertario". They sound like they are somewhere between what we in the United States would call liberal and libertarian.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 8:20PM|#
Edward, fyodor gave you an answer and you came back with dismissing him as having a "faith-based worldview". Sounds like you weren't really interested in what he had to say.
Gahan|7.31.07 @ 8:40PM|#
As I recall, Reason had a piece a while back on the Costa Rican libertarian party. The guy they interviewed said it was inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand. Sounds like a replica of U.S. libertarianism to me.
Edward|7.31.07 @ 8:50PM|#
BTS
"Unregulated markets are a matter of morality, not of what works
best for greatest number."
Whose morality?
Mike
Why do you think I was dismissing fyodor? Lots of people base their
opinions on faith. There's nothing wrong with that.
Atrevete|7.31.07 @ 8:55PM|#
What makes anyone assume Venezuela's economy is doing well and
people are becoming richer?
My daughter just got a 30% raise. 25% to cover inflation.
Mike Laursen|7.31.07 @ 8:55PM|#
fyodor's answer was kinda vague, but where did he ask anyone to accept anything about his view of free markets on faith? In fact, he referred to evidence, not faith.
|7.31.07 @ 9:18PM|#
People, Edward is clearly a troll.
I know that a lot of you actually come here exactly to fight with
the trolls. I realize that this is fun for you. It ruins the
comment threads for people like me, but I suppose I have no right
to have it my way.
|7.31.07 @ 10:26PM|#
Edward is less fun than joe, or even Jersey McJones. I demand interesting trolls.
|7.31.07 @ 10:26PM|#
@NAL
Polls like this are so sensitive to the wording of the
question(s) that the results are essentially
meaningless.
Indeed. Without the context of "free market" being defined, these
results are worse than useless. Even most left-liberals and social
democrats are nominally supporters of a free market. They just
believe in taxing the hell out of the profits earned thereof to
provide for exhaustive social benefits. Free markets and the
welfare state are hardly mutually exclusive.
Socialism, at least as defined by state ownership of the means of
production, has very few advocates these days.
Edward|7.31.07 @ 10:54PM|#
Free markets and the welfare state are hardly mutually
exclusive.
Ah, finally a sensible comment.
|8.1.07 @ 2:11AM|#
It's screwing with them that makes them rally around Dear
Leader.
Cool...so we can count on your support joe to eliminate the UN and
stop all foreign aid?
|8.1.07 @ 2:15AM|#
most Latin Americans think that free markets are good, they
will also think that completely unregulated markets with minimal
government and no taxation will be even a
better?
I imagine taxes in Venezuela are really low...government being
funded by the federalized oil supplies.
|8.1.07 @ 2:21AM|#
Unregulated markets are a matter of morality, not of what
works best for greatest number.
You forgot to add that morality is what works best for the greatest
number.
Kind of a circular argument....or are you going to tell us that
morality is derived from god...or worse, science and reason?
|8.1.07 @ 10:25AM|#
joshua,
Cool...so we can count on your support joe to eliminate the UN
and stop all foreign aid?
...and wear red clown shoes and name my parrot "Henry." Because
those have as much do with what I wrote as your suggestions.
|8.1.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Just a question: The article notes that support for free
markets has grown alongside economic growth. But, hasn't a lot of
that economic growth happened under (more or less) socialist
regimes?
The answer to your question is oil. Even morons can get rich when
they're swimming in black gold. See, e.g., Texas. That doesn't mean
they wouldn't be even richer were they not morons.
Kohlrabi|8.1.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Joshua,
"You forgot to add that morality is what works best for the
greatest number."
Apparently your utilitarian assertion is more valid than claiming
God or reason? I take it you don't think highly of the Bill of
Rights, being that the concept of individual rights is the
antithesis of "what's best for the greatest number" philosophy.
|8.1.07 @ 11:00AM|#
regarding the popularity of markets in Venezuela - I don't buy
that this means what we would want it to mean. These are the same
folks who hailed Chavez as he defined all his new powers in that
great speech about a democracy of the people. I have this nasty
feeling that "markets of freedom" and "democracy of the people" go
hand in hand.
Regarding the amount of faith required for a given political
outlook, I submit that Edward has far more unchecked assumptions
than the regulars hereabouts.
|8.1.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Given the "success" of yesterday's thread deconstructing the
bumper sticker phrase "Taxes are legalized theft" maybe today
should be the day to deconstruct the problems with the phrase "free
markets."
As I read libertarian economic theory, it does not advocate a free
market. It advocates that the state provide a regulated framework
in which markets can operate (property rights anyone?).
Evidence-based analysis of the economy certainly doesn't provide an
argument that totally free markets work, so the phrase "freer
markets work better" is only accurate if you recognize that there
is a limit beyond which its truth value begins to diminish.
As for the moral argument for a totally free market... you can't
argue with an unanalyzed axiom, so it doesn't make for a very
interesting discussion.
"It's the moral choice"
"no it's not."
"Yes it is"
"no it's not."
"Yes it is"
"no it's not."
"Yes it is"
"no it's not."
"Yes it is"
"no it's not."
"Yes it is"
Yawn.
|8.1.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Kohlrabi,
Apparently your utilitarian assertion is more valid than
claiming God or reason? I take it you don't think highly of the
Bill of Rights, being that the concept of individual rights is the
antithesis of "what's best for the greatest number"
philosophy.
I don't see your assertion here as being at all consistent. Given
that individual rights benefit each and every individual, and that
"every" individual is by definition the "greatest number" then
individual rights are not the antithesis of a utilitarian argument.
The bill of rights just help define what "best" means.
BTS|8.1.07 @ 12:00PM|#
"every" individual is by definition the "greatest number"
Huh? Do I need to read it as if it had no quotation marks?
Basically, individual rights boil down to "you have the right to
make your own choices which will lead you to succeed or fuck up."
It revolves around each person's choice rather than some sort of
"well, if these people do this, then they're better off." Frankly,
I don't care if someone's better off, I care if they got to where
they are by their own choices. Personally, I'd rather screw up my
own way than experience controlled success. I know I'm in the
minority on that point, though.
BTS|8.1.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Oh, and obviously my Libertarianism is very self-centered. I basically don't care if the government is off your back, I just want it off mine. Yeah, I basically hate taxes and being told what to do, but why is that a less valid point of view to base my political views on than say, those kooks who want to institute a theocracy. Not to say they're right, but they're justified in their politics if they actually do believe all that hokum about the man upstairs.
|8.1.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Given that individual rights benefit each and every
individual...
Easy there, big fella! Allowing individual A to pollute or drive on
the wrong side of the yellow line - ie, expanding his rights - most
certainly does not benefit individuals B,C, and D.
|8.1.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Clearly I did not communicate my point clearly.
No real time to clarify, but the point is that the bill of rights
has utilitarian benefits.
joe...
If individual rights are codified in a way that they are applied to
everyone, then everyone benefits from that codification. Doesn't
mean that there will be no conflict between individuals as they
exercise those rights. You are conflating different kinds of
benefits.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245