Venezuela seizes toilet paper factory to avoid shortage(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Venezuela seizes toilet paper factory to avoid shortage
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-24185342
7 comments
>In reality, the government's ineffective regulation not only discourages investment, but creates incentives for people in the chain of production to take advantage of access to cheap dollars and sell them in the highly profitable black market. With "import dollars" reallocated to currency arbitrage, there is little money left to import the raw materials needed to make things that Venezuelans need.
The irony is, substitute "wall street" for "black market" and this is exactly what the US is doing, albeit on a slower, less aggressive timescale, and with marginally less ineffective regulation.
The irony is, substitute "wall street" for "black market" and this is exactly what the US is doing, albeit on a slower, less aggressive timescale, and with marginally less ineffective regulation.
I don't quite understand. Can you explain in detail?
US has set interest rates at basically zero for awhile now, so banks can borrow from the government more or less for free. They can then take the money and engage in various profitable activities other than lending to individuals who wish to borrow money (which is what the money is supposed to be for).
It's almost like the US government should just lend the money out directly. But they'd never do that, right? Socialism!
Oh right: http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Feds-take-ov...
Oh right: http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Feds-take-ov...
[deleted]
Venezuela is the happiest country in South America, according to the World Happiness Index published last week by the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/you-pr...)
The BBC article portrays a country reacting quickly and aggressively to "avoid any scarcity of the product". And US critics (who view Venezuela as an enemy for disobeying their ideology) are reduced to writing articles about toilet paper.
BTW, Krugman and even Greenspan actually advocated nationalizing US banks as a condition of the bailout. (They advocated selling the banks to private investors after cleaning them up. But we could imagine the US public owning the banks rather than wealthy elites.) A bit bigger than toilet paper. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23krugman.html)
The BBC article portrays a country reacting quickly and aggressively to "avoid any scarcity of the product". And US critics (who view Venezuela as an enemy for disobeying their ideology) are reduced to writing articles about toilet paper.
BTW, Krugman and even Greenspan actually advocated nationalizing US banks as a condition of the bailout. (They advocated selling the banks to private investors after cleaning them up. But we could imagine the US public owning the banks rather than wealthy elites.) A bit bigger than toilet paper. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/opinion/23krugman.html)
Paragraph 1 is a non sequitur in the purest sense of the term.
Paragraph 2 mentions US critics, but unless the link changed, the article is a link to the BBC which: 1. is British and 2. a reporting of fact with no judgement expressed. In any case, your comment reveals more than any op-ed ever could.
Paragraph 3 is again bizarre assuming we're reading the same article (I double checked as I've read this story before- the news here seems to be the nationalization part).
So I'll conclude with this: there's a lot of criticism of the US sharedand discussed on this site, but I never notice anyone get so defensive about it, whether they agree with it or not. Why is this article so troubling to you? Especially if it's something you claim is so insignificant.
Paragraph 2 mentions US critics, but unless the link changed, the article is a link to the BBC which: 1. is British and 2. a reporting of fact with no judgement expressed. In any case, your comment reveals more than any op-ed ever could.
Paragraph 3 is again bizarre assuming we're reading the same article (I double checked as I've read this story before- the news here seems to be the nationalization part).
So I'll conclude with this: there's a lot of criticism of the US sharedand discussed on this site, but I never notice anyone get so defensive about it, whether they agree with it or not. Why is this article so troubling to you? Especially if it's something you claim is so insignificant.
Paragraph 1: The Foreign Policy article decries "the Venezuelan economic model of excessive meddling". The Happiness Index report puts this in perspective.
Furthermore, the CEPR link points out: "It is perhaps not surprising that media outlets that regularly try to convince their audiences that the social democratic policies being pursued in countries in Scandinavia, South America and elsewhere are a failure don’t want to report the contentment of citizens living in these countries."
So, there is a propaganda aspect to such weird articles about... toilet paper. Particularly since Venezuela is such an enemy nation that Jimmy Carter publicly claims the US was "likely behind" the Venezuelan coup. (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Carter:_US_%22likely_behind%22_V...)
Paragraph 2 responded to a post which merely quoted Foreign Policy, a US magazine owned by a mass media company.
Your paragraph 3 is unclear to me.
Your paragraph 4 is ad hominem and ironic.
Furthermore, the CEPR link points out: "It is perhaps not surprising that media outlets that regularly try to convince their audiences that the social democratic policies being pursued in countries in Scandinavia, South America and elsewhere are a failure don’t want to report the contentment of citizens living in these countries."
So, there is a propaganda aspect to such weird articles about... toilet paper. Particularly since Venezuela is such an enemy nation that Jimmy Carter publicly claims the US was "likely behind" the Venezuelan coup. (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Carter:_US_%22likely_behind%22_V...)
Paragraph 2 responded to a post which merely quoted Foreign Policy, a US magazine owned by a mass media company.
Your paragraph 3 is unclear to me.
Your paragraph 4 is ad hominem and ironic.
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
Paraphrasing some recent studies, it turns out that the largest determinant of one's 'happiness' is how well one is doing compared to one's peers. The happiness of individual members of a peer group doesn't say much about how that group compares to its own peer groups at the next level up, which in this case would be other national economies and economic schools of thought.
Put another way, I imagine the World Happiness Index published last week by the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network would have been impressed with the "progress" made in places such as Jonestown, Guyana.
Put another way, I imagine the World Happiness Index published last week by the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network would have been impressed with the "progress" made in places such as Jonestown, Guyana.
Yeah, right. Just like the Soviet Union was the happiest country when their people sat in line for toilet paper.
I'm sure Krugman would fit right in Venezuela.
I'm sure Krugman would fit right in Venezuela.
Toilet paper was a precious rarity in 1980s Bulgaria. Those ignoring the lessons of history are doomed to carefully collect yesterday's newspapers and stack them in the bathroom.
Pravda was printed on such rough paper. Ach, how The truth hurts!
obligatory http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087747/ - the "USSR toilet paper line" opening clip from it (sorry couldn't find it with original english soundtrek) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR0I3DgWXX8
What i'm genuiely wondering about is how Marx missed the "toilet paper effect" in Das Kapital while he was so true on the money with the rest of the theory.
What i'm genuiely wondering about is how Marx missed the "toilet paper effect" in Das Kapital while he was so true on the money with the rest of the theory.
Socialists, I love you. Please don't ever change.
A classic example of the so-called solution to shortages being the problem in the first place. Who's going to invest in a toilet paper factory in Venezuela now if it's just going to get stolen from you?
Apparently the fact that all other TP factories went bankrupt (or were prevented from being created by the loving government), so there is just one and it cannot produce enough of paper to satisfy demand, is not a hard proof of a total failure of government's policy. If the government was doing nothing wrong in the first place, why would there ever be a situation like this?
I really doubt if this factory's owners somehow unfairly prevent competitors from jumping in and satisfying demand. And if they do, most probably they use government as a nice tool to regulate competition out of existence.
In other words: whenever something globally shitty happens for no obvious reason, it's always a government and its monopoly of violence at fault.
I really doubt if this factory's owners somehow unfairly prevent competitors from jumping in and satisfying demand. And if they do, most probably they use government as a nice tool to regulate competition out of existence.
In other words: whenever something globally shitty happens for no obvious reason, it's always a government and its monopoly of violence at fault.
So I had to create a throwaway account since this is kind of a sensitive subject, but:
Why do so many people in the Western hemisphere use toilet paper? If you had fecal matter on your hand, would you wash it, or just wipe it with some paper and call it good? I've never actually understood this, and it leads to questionable personal hygiene. (Let's just say I put a finger somewhere during..um..and it didn't exactly come out clean.)
The ideal way to wash is with water, and maybe afterwards pat down with some TP to dry off. That's what a lot of South Asian countries and the Japanese do. I hope the American and European people learn to do this simple trick some day. Might help decrease the use of this ridiculous anachronism and save some trees.
Why do so many people in the Western hemisphere use toilet paper? If you had fecal matter on your hand, would you wash it, or just wipe it with some paper and call it good? I've never actually understood this, and it leads to questionable personal hygiene. (Let's just say I put a finger somewhere during..um..and it didn't exactly come out clean.)
The ideal way to wash is with water, and maybe afterwards pat down with some TP to dry off. That's what a lot of South Asian countries and the Japanese do. I hope the American and European people learn to do this simple trick some day. Might help decrease the use of this ridiculous anachronism and save some trees.
As a North American who enjoys discussing taboo subjects clinically and honestly, and in the interest of cultural understanding, I would explain it as:
Cleanliness standards for the hands are much higher than for the rectum area. For hands, not just water but soap is expected, after any work with biologically-suspect materials or surfaces (raw foods, places of illness, bathroom visits).
But for "down below," the paper-wipe is considered sufficient, with usual assumptions about clothing, bathing schedule, etc. The paper enables wiping until there's no trace (on the white paper) of any feces. The seated toilet (less common in other regions) helped spread open the rear cheeks; after standing any surfaces that were only-paper-wiped seem very nearly 'retracted' so as to not even be in contact with underwear. Within 12-24 hours, a full-body bathe and freshly-cleaned clothes are likely.
Still, those with predictable bowel movements may time them so they immediately precede a daily shower. In many bathrooms the sink is close enough to allow wetting toilet paper for part of the cleanup, and prepackaged moistened wipes are rising in popularity, and have long been used for messy-baby-cleanup.
Turning things around and looking at rinse-cultures, I'm probably not alone among North Americans in wondering:
(1) Doesn't the spray get droplets of feces-water mix everywhere? (Supposedly ideal bathroom hygiene is to close the toilet lid before flushing, to avoid sending a mist of toilet water into the air. Any forced-water rinsing seems to guarantee a mixed-mist reaches everywhere, including parts of the buttocks and legs far from the rectum that are never contaminated by paper-wiping.)
(2) Short of absolutely drenching yourself with multiple power rinses, how do you know you're "done" - that none of the remaining dampness is still fecal-contaminated water? (White paper provides a visual completion indicator.)
(3) My very rough impression is that fecally-transmitted diseases (typhoid, hepatitis, cholera, anything diarrhea-causing, etc.) are more prevalent in rinse-cultures. Are you sure that "a lot of South Asian countries" should be the "ideal way to wash" model, as opposed to the other way around? (North American practice would change very fast if there were evidence paper-wiping was insufficient to protect health.)
Cleanliness standards for the hands are much higher than for the rectum area. For hands, not just water but soap is expected, after any work with biologically-suspect materials or surfaces (raw foods, places of illness, bathroom visits).
But for "down below," the paper-wipe is considered sufficient, with usual assumptions about clothing, bathing schedule, etc. The paper enables wiping until there's no trace (on the white paper) of any feces. The seated toilet (less common in other regions) helped spread open the rear cheeks; after standing any surfaces that were only-paper-wiped seem very nearly 'retracted' so as to not even be in contact with underwear. Within 12-24 hours, a full-body bathe and freshly-cleaned clothes are likely.
Still, those with predictable bowel movements may time them so they immediately precede a daily shower. In many bathrooms the sink is close enough to allow wetting toilet paper for part of the cleanup, and prepackaged moistened wipes are rising in popularity, and have long been used for messy-baby-cleanup.
Turning things around and looking at rinse-cultures, I'm probably not alone among North Americans in wondering:
(1) Doesn't the spray get droplets of feces-water mix everywhere? (Supposedly ideal bathroom hygiene is to close the toilet lid before flushing, to avoid sending a mist of toilet water into the air. Any forced-water rinsing seems to guarantee a mixed-mist reaches everywhere, including parts of the buttocks and legs far from the rectum that are never contaminated by paper-wiping.)
(2) Short of absolutely drenching yourself with multiple power rinses, how do you know you're "done" - that none of the remaining dampness is still fecal-contaminated water? (White paper provides a visual completion indicator.)
(3) My very rough impression is that fecally-transmitted diseases (typhoid, hepatitis, cholera, anything diarrhea-causing, etc.) are more prevalent in rinse-cultures. Are you sure that "a lot of South Asian countries" should be the "ideal way to wash" model, as opposed to the other way around? (North American practice would change very fast if there were evidence paper-wiping was insufficient to protect health.)
> Still, those with predictable bowel movements may time them so they immediately precede a daily shower.
Do people actually do this? It seem to me a bit, well, anal.
Do people actually do this? It seem to me a bit, well, anal.
Answers:
(1) Doesn't the spray get droplets of feces-water mix everywhere? (Supposedly ideal bathroom hygiene is to close the toilet lid before flushing, to avoid sending a mist of toilet water into the air. Any forced-water rinsing seems to guarantee a mixed-mist reaches everywhere, including parts of the buttocks and legs far from the rectum that are never contaminated by paper-wiping.)
Not really, it depends upon the spray. Most sprays are gentle, not the high-pressure hosepipe you seem to be imagining.
(2) Short of absolutely drenching yourself with multiple power rinses, how do you know you're "done" - that none of the remaining dampness is still fecal-contaminated water? (White paper provides a visual completion indicator.)
You can always check with paper. Other than that, you check with your hand. Still much cleaner than leaving dried fecal matter in your rectum.
(3) My very rough impression is that fecally-transmitted diseases (typhoid, hepatitis, cholera, anything diarrhea-causing, etc.) are more prevalent in rinse-cultures. Are you sure that "a lot of South Asian countries" should be the "ideal way to wash" model, as opposed to the other way around? (North American practice would change very fast if there were evidence paper-wiping was insufficient to protect health.)
That has more to do with the water supply being contaminated with fecal matter, and not enough fresh sources of uncontaminated water being available for drinking in those countries.
(1) Doesn't the spray get droplets of feces-water mix everywhere? (Supposedly ideal bathroom hygiene is to close the toilet lid before flushing, to avoid sending a mist of toilet water into the air. Any forced-water rinsing seems to guarantee a mixed-mist reaches everywhere, including parts of the buttocks and legs far from the rectum that are never contaminated by paper-wiping.)
Not really, it depends upon the spray. Most sprays are gentle, not the high-pressure hosepipe you seem to be imagining.
(2) Short of absolutely drenching yourself with multiple power rinses, how do you know you're "done" - that none of the remaining dampness is still fecal-contaminated water? (White paper provides a visual completion indicator.)
You can always check with paper. Other than that, you check with your hand. Still much cleaner than leaving dried fecal matter in your rectum.
(3) My very rough impression is that fecally-transmitted diseases (typhoid, hepatitis, cholera, anything diarrhea-causing, etc.) are more prevalent in rinse-cultures. Are you sure that "a lot of South Asian countries" should be the "ideal way to wash" model, as opposed to the other way around? (North American practice would change very fast if there were evidence paper-wiping was insufficient to protect health.)
That has more to do with the water supply being contaminated with fecal matter, and not enough fresh sources of uncontaminated water being available for drinking in those countries.
most sprays are gentle
If you say so. Last spray setup I saw was a garden hose with a pistol-nozzle at the end (in Indonesia, no paper provided). Even assuming some other more-gentle delivery mechanism, the geometries make it seem likely some of the 'rinse' will drip back onto the nozzle, higher areas of the toiler, and other parts of the lower body. Paper allows precision.
check with your hand
Yuck! Even though hands get a wash later, the paper approach has as its goal: hand never contacts feces, toilet/black water, or rectum area.
•leaving dried fecal matter in your rectum*
If you're wiping fresh feces with proper paper, there isn't any visible fecal matter when finished.
Perhaps there's trace residue below visual perception. If so, it's not obvious that a gentle rinse with water alone would be any better at removing/sterilizing that. (A powerful rinse might help: but we've ruled that out to prevent splatter. A rinse with soapy water might help: but that doesn't seem to be the standard. Extra physical wiping with damp tissue might help, so that's sometimes done if there's a fresh-water source within reach.)
If you say so. Last spray setup I saw was a garden hose with a pistol-nozzle at the end (in Indonesia, no paper provided). Even assuming some other more-gentle delivery mechanism, the geometries make it seem likely some of the 'rinse' will drip back onto the nozzle, higher areas of the toiler, and other parts of the lower body. Paper allows precision.
check with your hand
Yuck! Even though hands get a wash later, the paper approach has as its goal: hand never contacts feces, toilet/black water, or rectum area.
•leaving dried fecal matter in your rectum*
If you're wiping fresh feces with proper paper, there isn't any visible fecal matter when finished.
Perhaps there's trace residue below visual perception. If so, it's not obvious that a gentle rinse with water alone would be any better at removing/sterilizing that. (A powerful rinse might help: but we've ruled that out to prevent splatter. A rinse with soapy water might help: but that doesn't seem to be the standard. Extra physical wiping with damp tissue might help, so that's sometimes done if there's a fresh-water source within reach.)
We use toilet paper to wipe our butts, not our hands. So we shouldn't get fecal matter on our hands to begin with. Though we still wash our hands afterwards.
How do you wash your butt with water? I wash my body parts (in shower) using my hands to rub. Should I apply my hands on butt at loo? Sometimes I do it, but that's only when paper doesn't do a good job. But then my hand is in direct contact with fecal matter and there's a good risk of getting it under fingernails too. Of course I wash my hands as well as I can afterwards, but regularly dirtying them that way does sound like questionable personal hygiene.
(I can't believe I'm discussing this on HN.)
How do you wash your butt with water? I wash my body parts (in shower) using my hands to rub. Should I apply my hands on butt at loo? Sometimes I do it, but that's only when paper doesn't do a good job. But then my hand is in direct contact with fecal matter and there's a good risk of getting it under fingernails too. Of course I wash my hands as well as I can afterwards, but regularly dirtying them that way does sound like questionable personal hygiene.
(I can't believe I'm discussing this on HN.)
A high pressure hose, accurately directed, works wonders. Though some paper to wipe afterwards helps. They're common enough in Asia to make me wonder why Europe hasn't caught on - at least in hotels and public bathrooms.
(I can't believe the level of discussion around toilet paper is more sophisticated than the discussion on the associated socioeconomic issues...)
(I can't believe the level of discussion around toilet paper is more sophisticated than the discussion on the associated socioeconomic issues...)
Picking one or the other is a trade-off of effectiveness of water jet vs direct action and yet another part to clean. TP does create waste, as do wipes, so water jet is an environmental win and possibly sanitation one as well. TP and wipes are great for business.
In the West, it's generally considered faux pas disgusting to not meaningfully wash your hands before leaving a public restroom, regardless of business. (Turning on the water doesn't count.) What's the perception of hand-washing etiquette elsewhere?
In the West, it's generally considered faux pas disgusting to not meaningfully wash your hands before leaving a public restroom, regardless of business. (Turning on the water doesn't count.) What's the perception of hand-washing etiquette elsewhere?
It's reasonably common in southern Europe to have bidets in the bathroom for that purpose. You're right that they're uncommon in the US and northern Europe, though.
I don't know why I know this, but I'm pretty certain most of the toilet paper is produced from tree farms, not impacting on deforestation. Have a read in the annual reports, CSR reports, of toilet papers manufacturers such as Kruger, P&G, Kimberly Clark, etc. Btw, I spotted a flaw in the "hand + water " argument... how do you make sure the tap is clean after washing your hands?
left hand for the butt, right hand for everything else
how can you be sure everybody does the same thing? what if the toilet is used by someone who is missing their upper left limb?
... http://www.fastcoexist.com/3016889/visualized/this-infograph...
... http://www.fastcoexist.com/3016889/visualized/this-infograph...
It's a cultural taboo to eat with your left hand in most countries. Just not the one you live in.
In the U.S. is taboo to eat with the left hand?
No need for a throwaway account, seems to me - discussing hygiene shouldn't be a sensitive matter.
> If you had fecal matter on your hand, would you wash it, or just wipe it with some paper and call it good? Yep, never understood this myself.
Then I discovered disposable wet wipes followed by a bit of TP to dry off. The equivalent of wiping with a clean soapy cloth. Next best thing to a full cleaning in the shower and uses less paper-like material by far.
> If you had fecal matter on your hand, would you wash it, or just wipe it with some paper and call it good? Yep, never understood this myself.
Then I discovered disposable wet wipes followed by a bit of TP to dry off. The equivalent of wiping with a clean soapy cloth. Next best thing to a full cleaning in the shower and uses less paper-like material by far.
Maybe the water isn't clean enough in many Venezuelan households.
You don't tend to see bidets in a lot of places, but you can basically spend $20 on a simple add-on to your toilet and go paper-free, if you want.
You don't tend to see bidets in a lot of places, but you can basically spend $20 on a simple add-on to your toilet and go paper-free, if you want.
So if you have not-clean-enough water in your tap, you'd wipe out shit from your hand with a paper instead of washing it off? The water then must be more dirty than whatever you got on your hand then.
I wash my hand rather than merely wiping it because I'm going to use my hand to touch other things afterwards, like food.
Until and unless people are picking up food with their butts before eating it, the comparison is nonsensical.
Until and unless people are picking up food with their butts before eating it, the comparison is nonsensical.
Too much socialism is not a good thing. Same for the capitalism.
We can play the word game and throw political ideologies around like frisbees, but the real issue is price controls.
During the Hurricane Sandy disaster there were price caps on gas and the desired effect was to discourage panic buying, but the opposite occurred -- since suppliers had no interest in accommodating the authorities then supply dried up.
It's not a matter of the suppliers being greedy assholes about it, but there were real and higher costs associated with supplying gas to NYC and the surrounding areas. They just didn't want to take the hit to their pocketbooks and I don't blame them.
What also happened was the well-connected people were able to make arrangements for their own private supplies of gas, and those people included politicians, business leaders, and other wealthy people, but it was secretive and supply was restricted to them. The politicians were publicly attacking/shaming "scalpers" who were trying to sell gas at a fair price, meanwhile they were secretly making back-room deals for themselves.
What's the lesson here? Depends on who you ask and what you goals are. Instituting price caps usually results in suppliers losing interest and disappearing, which is probably what happened in Venezuela.
Oh, and a black market of gas emerged. There were iOS and Android apps for finding suppliers and becoming a supplier yourself. I'm usually the first to ridicule statements like "the market corrected itself" but it stands to reason that it applies here quite well.
During the Hurricane Sandy disaster there were price caps on gas and the desired effect was to discourage panic buying, but the opposite occurred -- since suppliers had no interest in accommodating the authorities then supply dried up.
It's not a matter of the suppliers being greedy assholes about it, but there were real and higher costs associated with supplying gas to NYC and the surrounding areas. They just didn't want to take the hit to their pocketbooks and I don't blame them.
What also happened was the well-connected people were able to make arrangements for their own private supplies of gas, and those people included politicians, business leaders, and other wealthy people, but it was secretive and supply was restricted to them. The politicians were publicly attacking/shaming "scalpers" who were trying to sell gas at a fair price, meanwhile they were secretly making back-room deals for themselves.
What's the lesson here? Depends on who you ask and what you goals are. Instituting price caps usually results in suppliers losing interest and disappearing, which is probably what happened in Venezuela.
Oh, and a black market of gas emerged. There were iOS and Android apps for finding suppliers and becoming a supplier yourself. I'm usually the first to ridicule statements like "the market corrected itself" but it stands to reason that it applies here quite well.
> What also happened was the well-connected people were able to make arrangements for their own private supplies of gas, and those people included politicians, business leaders, and other wealthy people, but it was secretive and supply was restricted to them. The politicians were publicly attacking/shaming "scalpers" who were trying to sell gas at a fair price, meanwhile they were secretly making back-room deals for themselves.
This needs to be repeated. Time, and time again.
This needs to be repeated. Time, and time again.
There's a nice Econtalk on 'price gouging' [1] that talks at length on this subject. ihsw hits the highlights.
[1] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/01/munger_on_price_1.h...
[1] http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/01/munger_on_price_1.h...
It's interesting because my information source on this is mostly reddit.com comments across a wide variety of sections -- nyc, economics, conspiracy, libertarian, communism.
"This Is Why There Is No Toilet Paper in Venezuela"
http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/17/this_i...
The problems of the local toilet paper industry are illustrative. Typical of the global supply chain, many inputs that manufacturers need to produce toilet paper are also imported. But since Venezuela has extensive currency exchange controls to regulate the flow of foreign currency (which can either be bought/sold or obtained through trade), the government must approve all imports -- and the red tape involved is legendary.
In theory, the way the Venezuelan system should work is the following: The government authorizes imports by selling dollars that businesses buy to make international purchases at a heavily-subsidized price -- discounted at a much lower price than what the black market sells it for. After the imports have arrived and have cleared customs (lines at ill-equipped Venezuelan ports can last weeks), local manufacturers produce their goods, and then sell their products at tightly-controlled prices.
[...]
In reality, the government's ineffective regulation not only discourages investment, but creates incentives for people in the chain of production to take advantage of access to cheap dollars and sell them in the highly profitable black market. With "import dollars" reallocated to currency arbitrage, there is little money left to import the raw materials needed to make things that Venezuelans need.