Venezuela – socialist paradise on the verge of collapse

Socialism doesn't work guys, hopefully Venezuela can find a way to get rid of Maduro but I'm not massively convinved all these interventions from the US and others will lead to the best outcome.
 
Steerpike said:
You're surely not being serious with the point in bold?

There is a standing joke inside the country about the 'Maduro diet'. It is estimated that as much as 75% of the population has insufficient food, and that's despite the fact that about 10% of the population has already fled the country.

I'd say that the main problem in the US generally is overconsumption, but obviously there is a minority who are struggling to put food on the table (and some estimates put the number suffering from 'food insecurity' as high as 1 in 8 of the population - 12.5%). This is down to inequality which has always been an issue in the US.

As to Cuba, well it is hardly a gourmet's paradise either, and it does face challenges trying to feed its population. You might want to check this article out - https://borgenproject.org/food-crisis-in-cuba/

The west really is largely off the hook when it comes to the blame for the situation in Venezuela. For sure, US sanctions don't improve the situation for the people, but the US regards the regime in Venezuela as hostile (entirely understandable given that Hugo Chavez took every opportunity to blame the US for any and all of its ills, and Venezuela has been consistently inimical to US interests ever since he came to power - a position continued by his successor). As an oil rich country, the Chavez regime frittered away the wealth from the good years on social programs which were popular at the time, but increasingly funded by debt as both the oil price, and the amount produced by an inefficient state owned company, fell. The pursuit of hard left policies, including nationalisation and price controls, meant that enterprise and inward investment collapsed at a time when the economy badly needed to diversify.

South America generally has hardly been an advertisement for enlightened and competent governance down the years, but Venezuela is setting new benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I don't know where your claims about US and venezuela about food poverty goes against the part that you boldened on my post :confused::confused:
 
Last edited:
Andrew~ said:
Socialism doesn't work guys, hopefully Venezuela can find a way to get rid of Maduro but I'm not massively convinved all these interventions from the US and others will lead to the best outcome.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't work either. This is why every advanced and almost all developing countries have mixed economies.

The whole "capitalism vs socialism" debate is make believe nonsense spread by the media.

The reality is every advanced nation in the 21st century is going to have a mixed economy. The real question is how to organize that mixed economy. This unnecessary "capitalism vs socialism" crap from the media is just a red herring designed to confuse the ordinary people from the real issues - which is how to structure a mixed economy to actually function optimally instead of just setting up the structure to allow profiteering from the top .1%.
 
Andrew~ said:
Socialism doesn't work guys, hopefully Venezuela can find a way to get rid of Maduro but I'm not massively convinved all these interventions from the US and others will lead to the best outcome.
Click to expand...

Capitalism doesn't works for the vast majority of the world. And socialism is the future as shown by nordic countries are transitioning constantly towards it

Edit: and as @oneniltothearsenal , the classic understanding of socialism is obsolete.
 
4bars said:
Seriously, I don't know where your claims about US and venezuela about food poverty goes against the part that you boldened on my post :confused::confused:
Click to expand...
Sorry, I clearly misread your original comment. I thought you had suggested that food poverty in the US was just as bad as Venezuela, but I see that wasn't what you were saying.
 
4bars said:
Capitalism doesn't works for the vast majority of the world. And socialism is the future as shown by nordic countries are transitioning constantly towards it

Edit: and as @oneniltothearsenal , the classic understanding of socialism is obsolete.
Click to expand...
The Nordic model, from wikipedia "The Nordic model refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionized while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism".

The Nordic model is a capitalist one, but with some policies we normally associate with the left - e.g. a high tax, high provision state, and legislative support for organised labour. It's a model which has a lot more in common with the US and UK than it does with the likes of Venezuela.

Capitalism is the way of the world even if some countries choose to adopt socialism internally. By that I mean that international trade is based on capitalism and, in a world of global commerce, it is the ability to compete in a capitalist world that determines whether a country thrives. The limited evidence from the history of socialist states is that they do not thrive.

The complaint against capitalism is that its benefits are not shared equitably, and that has certainly been valid, but I still think most people are better off for it.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Capitalism doesn't work either. This is why every advanced and almost all developing countries have mixed economies.

The whole "capitalism vs socialism" debate is make believe nonsense spread by the media.

The reality is every advanced nation in the 21st century is going to have a mixed economy. The real question is how to organize that mixed economy. This unnecessary "capitalism vs socialism" crap from the media is just a red herring designed to confuse the ordinary people from the real issues - which is how to structure a mixed economy to actually function optimally instead of just setting up the structure to allow profiteering from the top .1%.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but none of that is relevant to Venezuela - where socialism was attempted and has failed spectacularly.

4bars said:
Capitalism doesn't works for the vast majority of the world. And socialism is the future as shown by nordic countries are transitioning constantly towards it

Edit: and as @oneniltothearsenal , the classic understanding of socialism is obsolete.
Click to expand...

None of the Nordic countries are socialist in any remote sense.
 
Andrew~ said:
I disagree, but none of that is relevant to Venezuela - where socialism was attempted and has failed spectacularly.



None of the Nordic countries are socialist in any remote sense.
Click to expand...

Thats why I put transitioning? of course they have parts of it, as other countries in EU has it is free education and free healthcare. I guarantee that this is socialist and not capitalist but everybody take it for granted
 
Steerpike said:
The Nordic model, from wikipedia "The Nordic model refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionized while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism".

The Nordic model is a capitalist one, but with some policies we normally associate with the left - e.g. a high tax, high provision state, and legislative support for organised labour. It's a model which has a lot more in common with the US and UK than it does with the likes of Venezuela.

Capitalism is the way of the world even if some countries choose to adopt socialism internally. By that I mean that international trade is based on capitalism and, in a world of global commerce, it is the ability to compete in a capitalist world that determines whether a country thrives. The limited evidence from the history of socialist states is that they do not thrive.

The complaint against capitalism is that its benefits are not shared equitably, and that has certainly been valid, but I still think most people are better off for it.
Click to expand...

As I answered, I said transitioning, and as I answered to someone else, all advanced economies adds more and more socialist concepts in their policies.

And about the boldened part:

People tend to understand capitalism as US and EU. But cvapitalism is global and sure! we are fecking great! but middle class in those regions are about 7-8% of total population?

Most of the capitalism results are shown in the rest of the world. Most of africa is capitalist, most of center america that organizes marches towards US is capitalism, most of south america is capoitalism, India? capitalism, etc... and they are fecking starving, slaving work conditions etc... because they are our fecking slaves that we don't see. Ask them if they like capitalism

Capitalism is like feudalism. Suprerich are the kings, middle class petty lords and the rest of the world, starving serfs. Capitalism works for you, for me that we are petty lords and have billions of people working for us in very poor conditions. Capitalism produces more deaths, more starvation than any other system in the world
 
4bars said:
Thats why I put transitioning? of course they have parts of it, as other countries in EU has it is free education and free healthcare. I guarantee that this is socialist and not capitalist but everybody take it for granted
Click to expand...

Okay, Nordic economies are not transitioning to socialism. If they are, they can look at Venezuela and marvel at their grand futures.

Most EU countries have insurance systems for healthcare, so yes, 'free' - but privately provided. There are also a lot of mixtures. Maybe their education is completely free, I don't know to be honest, haven't looked into it.
 
Andrew~ said:
Okay, Nordic economies are not transitioning to socialism. If they are, they can look at Venezuela and marvel at their grand futures.

Most EU countries have insurance systems for healthcare, so yes, 'free' - but privately provided. There are also a lot of mixtures. Maybe their education is completely free, I don't know to be honest, haven't looked into it.
Click to expand...

Saying that is like saying that US they can look at Zimbabwe and marvel at their grand futures because that African country is capitalist. No sense at all

Definitely Nordic countries are becoming more and more socialist. And no, healthcare are not privately provided in the main european countries in their vast majority
 
Last edited:
The amount of people who equate social policies in a free market capitalism with socialism, is too damn high.

<insert "too damn high" meme>
 
4bars said:
Saying that is like saying that US they can look at Zimbabwe and marvel at their grand futures because that African country is capitalist. No sense at all

Definitely Nordic countries are becoming more and more socialist. And no, healthcare are not privately provided in the main european countries in their vast majority
Click to expand...

It's strange seeing someone say Zimbabwe is a capitalist economy; I'm Zimbabwean have never considered it such - land grabs, capital controls, secret police, disrespect of private property, price controls... yeah sounds capitalist.

Germany, France, Netherlands - they all have an insurance system for healthcare where private providers thrive. Like I said, it's a bit mixed, there are some publicly owned providers, but nothing that resembles the NHS system we have in the UK.
 
Andrew~ said:
It's strange seeing someone say Zimbabwe is a capitalist economy; I'm Zimbabwean have never considered it such - land grabs, capital controls, secret police, disrespect of private property, price controls... yeah sounds capitalist.

Germany, France, Netherlands - they all have an insurance system for healthcare where private providers thrive. Like I said, it's a bit mixed, there are some publicly owned providers, but nothing that resembles the NHS system we have in the UK.
Click to expand...


YEs, Zimbabwe is that and is in a capitalist economy too. Like many other capitalist dictatorships. Is what it is a dictatorship as in Venezuela that has no disregard for public property and public resources and free healthcare is non existent as it happened like they applied cancer treatments when it was in reality water. I never heard that socialism was like that.

Has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. I hope you get the point that I was trying to make

Now. In those countries, the big majority of all their local medical professionals are made in free public universities (or very ridiculous fees, I don't know the specifics like in Spain that are 1000-2000 euros a year the tuition, for example).

If they are not private cliniques (minority of health care system):

Buildings are provided by public funds, equipements by public funds.

Then, again with the specifics, depending on each countries. I will speak about Spain. Some hospitals might be managed by private companies in concert with the public administration on the day by day running and those private companies are paid by the public funds and they keep the benefits. But of course they are closely watched by the government on their standards and is free for the population

SO yes, basically healthcare system is vastly public and free (obviously is not free, you pay taxes)
 
"Socialism" means that the goal is that "nothing should be owned by private interests". This is a failed system. It has failed in Venezuela. It has failed everywhere.

But "Capitalism" never meant the opposite, that "nothing should be owned by the government". On the contrary. The nordic countries do not have "socialism" they have capitalism.

United States in the 1960s wasn't "socialist" or "mixed". It was capitalist. President Johnson started the "Great Society", but he wasn't a socialist, on the contrary, he was a capitalist. Today, the United States government wastes over 600 billion per year on the military. This is not "socialism" or "mixed" because it is Government Money. It is just wasted money.

In my opinion, people should stop using the term "socialism" altogether. Socialism is a particular system, that has been tried and failed. End of the story. TOday, we want a capitalist economy, where the government spends its money to make people's lives better, where the government helps the 99% of the population.
 
Last edited:
4bars said:
YEs, Zimbabwe is that and is in a capitalist economy too. Like many other capitalist dictatorships. Is what it is a dictatorship as in Venezuela that has no disregard for public property and public resources and free healthcare is non existent as it happened like they applied cancer treatments when it was in reality water. I never heard that socialism was like that.

Has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. I hope you get the point that I was trying to make
Click to expand...

That's right, you haven't. Because wherever socialist economies are attempted, they always fail and degenerate into regular old dicatorships. Hence my initial post: socialism doesn't work.

Capitalism seems to be a broad term that encompasses whatever is happening in the world, in this thread you've equated things as disparate as feudalism, Zimbabwe, and the US to capitalism. Yet simulataneously calling the Nordic countries (incorrectly might I add), 'socialist' because they have a health insurance system.

I like a good debate, so I'm happy to carry on, but before that, you need to be clear about what you mean by capitalism, because right now you seem really confused.
 
CA_vampire said:
"Socialism" means that the goal is that "nothing should be owned by private interests". This is a failed system. It has failed in Venezuela. It has failed everywhere.

But "Capitalism" never meant the opposite, that "nothing should be owned by the government". On the contrary. The nordic countries do not have "socialism" they have capitalism.

United States in the 1960s wasn't "socialist" or "mixed". It was capitalist. President Johnson started the "Great Society", but he wasn't a socialist, on the contrary, he was a capitalist. Today, the United States government wastes over 600 billion per year on the military. This is not "socialism" or "mixed" because it is Government Money. It is just wasted money.

In my opinion, people should stop using the term "socialism" altogether. Socialism is a particular system, that has been tried and failed. End of the story. TOday, we want a capitalist economy, where the government spends its money to make people's lives better, where the government helps the 99% of the population.
Click to expand...

yeah right.

I agree Norway is not a socialist country, you are right about that, but they are not capitalist either.

Call it social capitalism or something else.
 
Andrew~ said:
I disagree, but none of that is relevant to Venezuela - where socialism was attempted and has failed spectacularly.

None of the Nordic countries are socialist in any remote sense.
Click to expand...

Every time a place has tried to get close to unregulated, laissez-faire captialism the results have been a disaster. From all the problems of worker safety conditions in the late 1880-90s to the problems leading to the Crash of 29 and the Great Depression to more recently how the laissez-faire prescriptions for post Soviet collapse Russia were a failure.

The fact is, the only stable economics in the 21st century are mixed economies. "Capitalism" can only work with a strong and efficient social safety net and regulatory structures that inhibited the unrestrained profit motive where it creates massive incentive problems.

The real question pertains to have to structure a mixed economy to restrain laissez-faire market fundamentalism and provide enough social safety nets for a stable society.

Or to put it another way Venezuela doesn't mean anything for how the US should be restructuring its structural incentives (IE getting rid of the horribly inefficient privatized healthcare experiment)
 
Andrew~ said:
That's right, you haven't. Because wherever socialist economies are attempted, they always fail and degenerate into regular old dicatorships. Hence my initial post: socialism doesn't work.

Capitalism seems to be a broad term that encompasses whatever is happening in the world, in this thread you've equated things as disparate as feudalism, Zimbabwe, and the US to capitalism. Yet simulataneously calling the Nordic countries (incorrectly might I add), 'socialist' because they have a health insurance system.

I like a good debate, so I'm happy to carry on, but before that, you need to be clear about what you mean by capitalism, because right now you seem really confused.
Click to expand...

Well, not because I call a table a chair the table is a chair. The same, not because a regime calls themselve socialist, is socialist. Socialist is a political system and as you said "Capitalism seems to be a broad term that encompasses whatever is happening in the world", socialist seems to be a broad term that encompasses failed socialist economies". They were just that, dictatorships that spiked their economies with socialism policies and failed. Like nordic countries (and european economies at a lower degree) that spiked their economies with socialist policies and thrive. And the more they do, the more they advance as collective society. And again, don't put words in my post I didn't say. I didn't say they are socialists. I said they are transitioning

And yes, for me capitalism is the modern feudalism. I am entitled at my opinion as you as yours: " The complaint against capitalism is that its benefits are not shared equitably, and that has certainly been valid, but I still think most people are better off for it." I am sure that those countries where the sweat shops and the touristy brothels are have another opinion of capitalism
 
If we can all (for the most part) agree that the Nordic model is desirable, does it really matter what we call it?
 
2cents said:
If we can all (for the most part) agree that the Nordic model is desirable, does it really matter what we call it?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it does as too much misinformation is spread about "capitalism versus socialism".

Norway is a mixed economy. Its neither capitalist nor socialist and it should be recognized simply as a mixed economy to move forward logically
 
Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
I vote for Socialism with Gucci boots.
Click to expand...

You might want to reconsider those boots

536532_GGZ30_1261_001_100_0000_Light-Flashtrek-sneaker-with-removable-crystals.jpg


images
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Unfortunately it does as too much misinformation is spread about "capitalism versus socialism".

Norway is a mixed economy. Its neither capitalist nor socialist and it should be recognized simply as a mixed economy to move forward logically
Click to expand...

Mixed/balanced sounds just fine to me, as long we can accept that different economies in different stages of development require different state : private-driven ratios. But perhaps that is the source of the debate over the terminology.
 
2cents said:
If we can all (for the most part) agree that the Nordic model is desirable, does it really matter what we call it?
Click to expand...

True that. Though then what we do with the forum if we have to agree with everything? :p
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Unfortunately it does as too much misinformation is spread about "capitalism versus socialism".

Norway is a mixed economy. Its neither capitalist nor socialist and it should be recognized simply as a mixed economy to move forward logically
Click to expand...
There are seemingly very different ideas of what socialism means, but my understanding is this: As long as these societies have private property, a market economy & commodity production, they have some variation of a capitalist economy. A social democratic leaning one to be sure, but in my book the term socialism means collectivized means of production of some sort.
2cents said:
If we can all (for the most part) agree that the Nordic model is desirable, does it really matter what we call it?
Click to expand...
One key question is: Is that economic model reproducible in any national economy (say, Venezuela, or India, or Zimbabwe), or does it have specific historical/economical preconditions that may be or may not be met in a given society?

I can't answer that question, but my impression is that many people don't ask themselves this. A lot depends on the answer.
 
Synco said:
One key question is: Is that economic model reproducible in any national economy (say, Venezuela, or India, or Zimbabwe), or does it have specific historical/economical preconditions that may be or may not be met in a given society?
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s key. My own instincts lead me to believe there is probably no one-size-fits-all system, but that extremities at either end of the spectrum are bound to fail wherever/whenever implemented. That is how I approach political systems/ideologies, but I’m on much less solid ground assessing economic systems or models.
 
2cents said:
Mixed/balanced sounds just fine to me, as long we can accept that different economies in different stages of development require different state : private-driven ratios. But perhaps that is the source of the debate over the terminology.
Click to expand...

Synco said:
There are seemingly very different ideas of what socialism means, but my understanding is this: As long as these societies have private property, a market economy & commodity production, they have some variation of a capitalist economy. A social democratic leaning one to be sure, but in my book the term socialism means collectivized means of production of some sort.
Click to expand...

The problem in the US (and by extension the rest of the Americas) is that the right wing has pushed this euphemistic, misleading idea that any form of social welfare or social safety net = "socialism". And for too long many of the left shied away from actually studying economics so a lot of people on the left also misunderstood it and fell into ridiculous rhetoric traps. I've run into some really thick individuals trying to explain the simple idea of a mixed economy that isn't really one or the other but mixes both. Seems like a simple concept right?

But many on the right make some variation of this propoganda:
1. Venezuela was a disaster and failed for the people
2. Venezuela purported to be socialist
3. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez wants socialist policies like taxing the rich
4. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez will make the US a disaster like Venezuela if her policy ideas pass


I know how stupid that probably sounds to you regulars of CE but sadly that argument works on a chunk of people in the US. And to counter it people that currently live in the US like myself have to try to both educate and dismantle these arguments at the same time as concisely as possible without being confusing. Its frustrating because countering this ignorant nonsense takes up more time and energy than spouting ignorant nonsense.
 
2cents said:
Yeah that’s key. My own instincts lead me to believe there is probably no one-size-fits-all system, but that extremities at either end of the spectrum are bound to fail wherever/whenever implemented. That is how I approach political systems/ideologies, but I’m on much less solid ground assessing economic systems or models.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, not every political system fits every country and at every time. Everything needs a kind of mentality and education that might be taught but it can take generations and historical circumstances that brought that society at that point. Even language has influence the way we behave. That is why I found ridiculous the sentence "bring democracy to X country". Is not any one business to get into a foreign country to change the economic system, that is what they want to do with the excuse that there is a "bad guy"
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
The problem in the US (and by extension the rest of the Americas) is that the right wing has pushed this euphemistic, misleading idea that any form of social welfare or social safety net = "socialism". And for too long many of the left shied away from actually studying economics so a lot of people on the left also misunderstood it and fell into ridiculous rhetoric traps. I've run into some really thick individuals trying to explain the simple idea of a mixed economy that isn't really one or the other but mixes both. Seems like a simple concept right?

But many on the right make some variation of this propoganda:
1. Venezuela was a disaster and failed for the people
2. Venezuela purported to be socialist
3. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez wants socialist policies like taxing the rich
4. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez will make the US a disaster like Venezuela if her policy ideas pass


I know how stupid that probably sounds to you regulars of CE but sadly that argument works on a chunk of people in the US. And to counter it people that currently live in the US like myself have to try to both educate and dismantle these arguments at the same time as concisely as possible without being confusing. Its frustrating because countering this ignorant nonsense takes up more time and energy than spouting ignorant nonsense.
Click to expand...

You mean examples like:

You are left winged you can't own an iphone?
If you don't like go to Cuba?
 
4bars said:
You mean examples like:

You are left winged you can't own an iphone?
If you don't like go to Cuba?
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. Too much of that type of thinking and people that fall into it.
 
@oneniltothearsenal @2cents @Synco

I do not believe there is any one Nordic model.

Norway has oil, large amounts of it. It also has the highest rate of govt ownership of wealth in the world (higher than Venezuela too).
Sweden and Denmark do not have such a blessing.
All were recipients of Marshall plan aid.
Denmark and Norway are NATO members, Sweden is neutral.


If Finland counts - it was a Tsarist colony till 1917, in 1945 it was a war-devastated and quite economically backward country getting zero American assistance and with a big war debt to the USSR. Yet it industrialised rapidly and maintained a strong welfare state till 1991, however it did have employment issues and a lot of out-migration.
It is unique because of its geography, it was neutral in the cold war and had a defence treaty with the USSR.

Yes, they share high social spending, but their history and thus paths to get there, and some of the specifics (their healthcare systems are all different afaik) and their foreign relations (which sometimes determine trading partners) were very different.

About the parties in power:
Sweden has seen a steady erosion of its dominant Social-Democrat party to the liberals over 3 decades and to the right over 10-15 years, in Denmark the Soc Dems have themselves moved quite hard right on immigration. I haven't figured out how Norway's governments have been formed tbh, though like in Sweden the Labour party has always been dominant but has been losing voters over the past 3 decades. Finland like Sweden had a long post-war Soc Dem rule which fell in the late 80s, unlike in Sweden the party of the welfare state seems to have completely collapsed today.
So it appears that creating this apparently desirable social spending is now guarantee of political success in the long-term.
 
berbatrick said:
@oneniltothearsenal @2cents @Synco

I do not believe there is any one Nordic model.

Norway has oil, large amounts of it. It also has the highest rate of govt ownership of wealth in the world (higher than Venezuela too).
Sweden and Denmark do not have such a blessing.
All were recipients of Marshall plan aid.
Denmark and Norway are NATO members, Sweden is neutral.


If Finland counts - it was a Tsarist colony till 1917, in 1945 it was a war-devastated and quite economically backward country getting zero American assistance and with a big war debt to the USSR. Yet it industrialised rapidly and maintained a strong welfare state till 1991, however it did have employment issues and a lot of out-migration.
It is unique because of its geography, it was neutral in the cold war and had a defence treaty with the USSR.

Yes, they share high social spending, but their history and thus paths to get there, and some of the specifics (their healthcare systems are all different afaik) and their foreign relations (which sometimes determine trading partners) were very different.

About the parties in power:
Sweden has seen a steady erosion of its dominant Social-Democrat party to the liberals over 3 decades and to the right over 10-15 years, in Denmark the Soc Dems have themselves moved quite hard right on immigration. I haven't figured out how Norway's governments have been formed tbh, though like in Sweden the Labour party has always been dominant but has been losing voters over the past 3 decades. Finland like Sweden had a long post-war Soc Dem rule which fell in the late 80s, unlike in Sweden the party of the welfare state seems to have completely collapsed today.
So it appears that creating this apparently desirable social spending is now guarantee of political success in the long-term.
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks. Strengthens the point that each societal model needs to be viewed in light of its own particular history.

The way I encounter the term "Scandinavian model" in discussions, it mainly seems to be a rather vague metaphor for high taxation, favourable working conditions & regulations, high government spending (education, welfare, etc.). I'm sure more in-depth references exist, but in most public discussions that seems to be it.
 
Maduro has blocked the roads between Venezuela and Colombia with trucks to prevent international aid (mostly food and medicine) to enter the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.