Venezuela is running out of sugar

[Bacchus4.0]

Source: CNN

Amid a political and humanitarian crisis, Venezuela's state-run sugar producers announced earlier this week that they have temporarily ceased production due to a lack of raw sugar.

On Thursday, Coca-Cola FEMSA, the largest bottler worldwide of Coke, threw up a red flag. To make Coke in Venezuela, FEMSA needs refined, industrial sugar made by the Venezuelan Agricultural Corporation of Sugar, a government entity.

Coca-Cola FEMSA, which is partly owned by Coca-Cola (KO), said it would continue production of Coke in the country until it exhausts its own sugar stockpile. It says it's seeking other sources of sugar.

"While this situation will impact the production of sugar-sweetened beverages in the coming days," a Coca-Cola spokeswoman told CNNMoney, "the production lines for zero-sugar beverages such as bottled water and Coca-Cola Light ... continue operating normally."


Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/20/investing/venezuela-coca-cola-femsa-crisis/

[Xolodno]

2. Contrary to popular belief...

...Venezuela is not Socialist....its Communist. Central planned economies like unregulated capitalism are great ideas on paper...and horrible in execution. Both systems need to be tossed into the dust heap of history.

Socialist nations are Norway, Sweden, Germany, etc.

So moving to socialism is probably a good idea.

[NobodyHere]

3. How is Venezuala Communist and not Socialist?

[Xolodno]

4. Communisim

Is a planned economy and the government controls most or all the production functions. For example, nationalized industries (like oil is in Venezuela). Bars much of, if not all of the free market activity.

Socialism still has a market economy, but taxes and then subsidizes certain social elements that it believes promotes and fosters economic activity and/or provides essential services. Examples include, health care, public roads, public transportation, etc. It doesn't get involved in deciding what and how much to produce, which communism does.

[EX500rider]

5. Actually in socialism the government owns the means of production..

....while in communism the government owns everything.

[Xolodno]

6. In the purest sense, yeah.

But there has never been "pure" capitalism, socialism, communism, etc.

The best system is always something in-between. One that reflects the values of the populace while being feasible.

Hence why you see most socialist nations owning partially the means of production in some areas, full control in other area and hands off in in a few. Its a delicate balancing act, knowing where the government should have control that promotes the well being of society and at the same time foster economic activity. And then regulate free markets so they don't get out of hand.

[EX500rider]

7. The countries you think of as socialists are capitalists with strong social nets.

ie Scandinavia etc

[Xolodno]

8. Where do draw the line between...

Socialism and Capitalism? Throw enough economists into a room to debate that and lets see who walks out alive.

Many would quantify capitalist nations with strong social nets as socialism. And many others will still quantify as still being capitalist. Some would quantify the US as not being capitalist due to (albeit, minute) the social nets it has.

We know what the pure definitions are, but everything in-between is subject to "interpretation"

In the end, its a pointless debate. Like Keynes said about Bancor; "everyone would be on board with Bancor, if you just didn't call it Bancor".

[Jemmons]

10. You might find that the difference is not as clear cut

Nations dont adhere to simple rules and theoretical definitions. Scandinavian countries have strong social nets for those who because of health issues or unemployment need that. But the socialism is a lot more than that and is integrated into the lives of every single citizen through the education system, public funded media, the high participation in the political process (voter turnout above 85%), less draconian or cruel criminal punishment and a host of other differences relative to the stark neoliberal systems found in UK and US.

[GulfCoast66]

9. Norway, Sweden and Germany

Are definitely not socialist They are highly regulated capitalist nations.

[Jemmons]

11. And yet policies common there gets shot down as "socialist" when suggested in the US.

[GulfCoast66]

13. Not by me!

I love their systems no matter what they are called, socialist or capitalist!

[Xolodno]

14. Heh..because everyone would be on board if...

...you just didn't call it Socialist.

Think the best way to explain this; Scandinavian, European, etc. Nations implement many Socialist policies....just not all of them. So it doesn't fit the text book definition. But likewise, they don't fit the text book definition of capitalism.

And so, varying economist will interpret these economic systems in different ways....


...and that's when the fight started....

[Jemmons]

15. You might have missed the fact that those policies were demands of the labour movement

demands made by people who were marching the streets with red banners. Nothing capitalist about those policies.

The difficulties implementing something alike in the US will not be solved by finding a better name for them. There are people who are against the results of them whatever name they go by.

http://imgur.com/a/0KY3z

[Xolodno]

16. Actually....

Many economists would disagree with that (albeit I agree more with you), the key term is "ownership of the factors of production". So what the hell does that exactly mean? Some take is strictly as government ownership, but that definition is too narrow (in my opinion).

If the government can effectively influence, change, guide the factors of production through its social programs, doesn't that constitute de facto ownership? I and others believe it does, some would disagree. And hence, the argument, is it Socialism? or well regulated Capitalism?

Flip side of that, the narrow definition of capitalism would constitute that regulation in capitalism denotes that its not capitalism.

This is like the "free trade" argument. Is NAFTA really "free trade"? Yes on one hand it eliminates protectionist policies...but on the other hand, no. As there are still some protectionist policies (I can't buy a bottle of Monte Xinac in the US) and we don't have a free movement of labor. Thus to define it as "free trade" is subject to interpretation.

There is no solid line to say its this or that, you have the pure definitions and then reality where everything is in the grey areas.

[Xolodno]

12. See post #8

I've long since maximized my utility on this debate. Herding cats is easier than getting economists to agree.