Argentina and Chile had permanent underclasses and vast wealth concentrated among comparatively few people which is is a repetitive story among South American and Central American countries. US poverty today would have been considered middle class wealth by comparison.
Have not studied Venezuela prior to Chavez so I won’t comment.
I was stationed in Panama in the 90s. At that time Venezuela was a First World Country. Not kidding. The wealthy Panamanian doctors I worked with took their wives on shopping trips there. They used to try to get me to go. They talked about malls with stores where the metal on the glass fronts was literally gold plated. Then Chavez.
Very true, but it is all about PERCEPTION, not reality. In the 1950s-- and even into the 1960s-- most of us were happy to live in small little bungalows and share a room with three brothers. Today, the Bernie Saunders and Elizabeth Warrens of the world have a large part of America considering themselves in poverty if they actually have to pay for a college education of dubious value.
They are no different from the Perons of the 1940s or the Chilean Communists of the 1970s in convincing a sizable part of the electorate that they are ENTITLED to what somebody else is perceived as having.
Why do you suppose rioters and looters first go after electronics and luxury goods rather than bottled water and flour?