Why is it that reporters keep scratching their heads about Venezuela’s descent into extreme poverty and chaos? The cause is simple. Socialism. End it and you will end the misery.
Here is how the Times explained the reason for Venezuela’s dire situation: “The growing economic crisis (was) fueled by low prices for oil, the country’s main export; a drought that has crippled Venezuela’s ability to generate hydroelectric power; and a long decline in manufacturing and agricultural production.”
There’s no mention — not one — of the fact that Hugo Chávez tried to turn Venezuela into a socialist paradise, policies that his successor Nicolás Maduro has continued. The Times’ coverage is par for the course.
As we have noted many times in this space, it is socialism, not oil prices or the weather or greedy businessmen or any other such factor that’s to blame for Venezuela’s economic crisis. This is what socialism produces. Always and everywhere. It is as close to an iron law of economics as there can be.
Yet reporters continue to obfuscate, if not totally ignore, this economic reality when they try to explain to readers what is going on down there.
Why do reporters ignore the obvious? We’d surmise that it’s largely because liberal journalists are infatuated with the idea of socialism.
Well, duh. They’re socialists themselves, and they’re so much smarterer than the rest of us, and…well, this time, it just HAS to work. And if you don’t believe all that, just ask them.