[padobson]

No standard capitalist regime would be able to do that anyway

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.

If you're saying that no pro-capitalist government could have diversified Venezuela's economy, then I completely agree with you.

If you're saying that nurturing a market economy in Venezuela would have failed to diversify it's economy, then I have to disagree.

Markets tend to diversify on their own as entrepreneurs recognize new demand and respond to meet it. Because of the limitless variables that drive how this happens in different regions and industries in any given country, government administrators are not well suited to recognize and respond to such needs at a national level.

Government should instead cultivate market economies that produce economic surplus, and then tax some percentage of that surplus to provide the social programs their citizens request.

[coliveira]

This is unsupported by facts. China has a very tight control on areas that they want to develop or open to outside capital, and their growth has been stunning. On the other hand, undeveloped countries that have open their markets with little oversight have suffered tremendous economic problems, Mexico is a case in point. There is no correlation whatsoever between lax oversight of markets and robust economic growth, as most people tend to believe.

[CryptoPunk]

China's economy was rapidly privatised, starting with the privatisation of collective farms and legalisation of entrepreneurship in 1978:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2005-08-21/online-ex...

Much of the economic growth happened in special economic zones that were free of much of the state economic control present in the rest of China.

Also, tight control can be consistent with market freedom when it is targeted at controlling violent crime, kidnapping and extortion. This is one area where China has outperformed other developing countries.

[padobson]

If you'll notice in all of my comments here, I've been careful to say "markets" and not "free markets". I've also tried to steer clear of specific opinions about levels of regulation or taxation or the value provided by certain social programs.

If you want to discuss the merits of a specific regulation, tax or social program, I'm happy to do that, but I haven't addressed any of those things as of yet.

Since China switched to a market economy, a huge chunk of their massive population has escaped poverty. Some of those markets are highly regulated, but they are still markets. Nothing about China's recent growth is incompatible with the views I've expressed in this thread thus far.

[nerfhammer]

this is why the term "competitive market" better captures what may intended by the term "free market".

"free" would seem to exclude regulation that increases market competition but would not seem to exclude subsidies that might decrease competition. All of the benefits of markets come from competition, not "free"-ness.

[pessimizer]

> If you're saying that nurturing a market economy in Venezuela would have failed to diversify it's economy, then I have to disagree.

Then how would you explain the lack of diversification that survived through all previous regimes before the Bolivarians?