Recently, reports have emerged that former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was captured by the Trump administration. While controversial from an international law perspective, this event highlights a deeper truth: the people of Venezuela were dissatisfied with their leadership, and Maduro’s governance clearly failed to meet the country’s needs.
Venezuela was once one of the richest countries in Latin America, largely due to its oil wealth. In the mid-20th century, Venezuela enjoyed high per capita income, robust infrastructure, and a thriving economy. But over time, the state increasingly intervened in the economy. Hugo Chávez and later Maduro implemented policies that undermined private enterprise, replaced skilled professionals in the oil industry with political appointees, and took control of private businesses.
The result was a collapse in production, hyperinflation, and widespread shortages. Here we see the central lesson: state overreach and mismanagement can destroy even the richest economies if it replaces incentive-driven entrepreneurship with central planning.
A striking historical parallel can be found in Sweden before 1990. Sweden was among the wealthiest countries in the world, but extreme taxes and heavy regulation prompted many successful entrepreneurs, like Ingvar Kamprad of IKEA and H&M’s founders, to relocate abroad. The country faced stagnant productivity and capital flight. By the early 1990s, Sweden was forced to liberalize its economy—cutting taxes, promoting competition, and allowing private enterprise to flourish again. Today, Sweden thrives because it balanced state welfare with market freedom.
This situation is not unique to Sweden. Norway now faces a similar challenge, as many wealthy individuals relocate to countries like Switzerland, seeking lower taxes and more favorable conditions for capital and innovation. The lesson is clear: overburdening taxes and excessive state control can drive away the very people and resources that sustain growth.
Beyond Scandinavia, China illustrates a different form of state intervention. While nominally communist, China has prospered because it maintained market incentives and became the “factory of the world.” Similarly, East Germany under the Cold War lacked both natural resources and market-driven productivity. Even with state support from the Soviet Union, the system could not generate sustainable wealth. Had East Germany possessed major natural resources or been a manufacturing powerhouse, it might have prolonged stability, but the lack of institutional and economic freedom would still have limited growth.
The pattern is consistent across history: states cannot create wealth—only individuals and businesses can. The state can protect property, enforce contracts, and provide social safety nets, but replacing entrepreneurship and market signals with centralized control often leads to stagnation, collapse, or both. A striking modern example is Spotify, a private, market-driven company founded in 2006.
By 2024, Spotify generated over €15.6 billion in revenue and reached profitability for the first time, with more than 675 million active users worldwide. Impressively, Spotify’s market capitalization has topped €100 billion — rivaling the valuation of Equinor, Norway’s state-owned energy giant. This contrast highlights a central economic truth: value creation tends to emerge where innovation and market forces are free to operate, not solely where the state dominates. Sweden’s reform after 1990, China’s pragmatic blend of central authority and market incentives, and Venezuela’s tragedy all confirm this principle.
As the world grapples with economic uncertainty, demographic changes, and resource limitations, the key takeaway is simple: growth and innovation thrive when incentives are clear, markets function, and the state sets the rules rather than dictates the outcomes. Heavy-handed state intervention may appear morally satisfying, but history demonstrates that it usually comes at the cost of long-term prosperity.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Shinybull.com. The author has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the information provided; however, neither Shinybull.com nor the author can guarantee the accuracy of this information. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in precious metal products, commodities, securities, or other financial instruments. Shinybull.com and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.
Ket Garden
Business, Politics, Finans 