More Venezuela....Debunked

guy calls john disingenuous while being disingenuous. maduro's support isn't 1/5 of the population, it's his core support that's a whole 1/5 of the population. ok. what's the core support for the anti-maduro movement? maybe there's a good reason why maduro banned both of the 2 most popular opposition candidates from running in the recent election? could it possibly be that their core support is larger?

sure john was mocking chavez. guy makes exactly the same points john made, chavez used oil wealth to fix a lot of poverty and its related problems. there is no debunking here. nice ad-hominem logical fallacy thrown in to boot.

just a straight-out economics error next. less cash doesn't cause inflation, it's the opposite that causes inflation. this is why countries don't just print money, because it causes inflation. remember there's so much cash people are weighing it instead of counting it, yet this guy claims there's a cash shortage. 

as part of this he claims companies are smuggling goods out of the country, but then provides no evidence for this nor suggests any means by which they are apparently committing this crime. foreign companies are turning up to farms, buying their produce with non-colombian currency and then selling those products abroad?

guy is disingenuous again. meat is in the biggest shortage, along with other imported foods because nobody wants to sell their stuff to venezuela for bolivars because they aren't worth anything because of all the money printing.

more disingenuousness. if you interview maduro supporters of course they say things are great.

wage increase figures prove the opposite of what guy is attempting. when inflation is over 1000%, a wage hike of 60% or even 155% isn't an increase.

the most important part - about maduro's creation of a new assembly - skips 3 essential points. firstly the 2 most popular opposition candidates for presidency were banned from the election by maduro himself. this led to the second point, that the creation of the new assembly wasn't open to anybody as claimed by this guy, because it was enacted by a president who wasn't fairly elected and so it was boycotted by the opposition. the third is that while guy correctly says the president can form a new assembly to rewrite the constitution, that's not what the new assembly has done, they've not rewritten the consitution at all, instead they've taken over legislative powers from the already existing assembly which was democratically elected. the law allows for a constitutional assembly to be formed, not a new replacement legislative assembly, thus the claim is factually incorrect.

and there with the 3 most glaring errors to the most important factor exposed, the debunk of the debunk is finished.