Will Venezuelans be better off at the end of 2026?

122

1kṀ46k

Dec 31

66%

chance

ALL

The US just attacked Venezuela and reportedly captured President Maduro. Will Venezuelans as a whole be better off at the end of 2026 compared to the end of 2025? Resolves based on my personal knowledge and understanding.

I will not bet in this market. I will try to be unbiased, but I am a Democrat who is generally doubtful of America attacking other countries. I am also not a fan of Maduro.

I will attempt to find trustworthy and objective criteria and reporting to inform the resolution, and may run a poll asking what people think about whether Venezuelans are better off. However, if suitable objective criteria cannot be found, the market will resolve based on my subjective judgment.

A trustworthy poll of Venezuelans would themselves asking if they're better off would be the gold standard if available.

Market context

Get

1,000

to start trading!

People are also trading

Will Maduro remain president of Venezuela through 2026?

1% chance

Will Trump visit Venezuela in 2026?

33% chance

Will the PSUV cease to be the ruling party of Venezuela before 2028?

75% chance

Presidential Election in Venezuela by EOY 2026?

53% chance

Will there be a civil war in Venezuela before 2050?

50% chance

Will Venezuela become more authoritarian in 2025?

39% chance

Will there be a civil war with at least 1,000 deaths in Venezuela in 2026?

18% chance

Will Venezuela enter a new hot war with anyone by the end of 2026?

32% chance

How will Venezuela be classified in The Economist's 2027 Democracy Index?

President of Venezuela at the end of 2026

21 Comments

124 Holders

269 Trades

Sort by:

My personal estimate: 20%. Only buying a token amount because of subjectivity

bought Ṁ500 YES

US sanctions are a large part of why Venezuela's economy is struggling so much. After this operation, a US friendly regime will likely be installed and the sanctions will likely be lifted.

opened a Ṁ500 NO at 65% order

@SaviorofPlant and history suggests US occupation consistently improves conditions on the ground

opened a Ṁ500 NO at 70% order

@SaviorofPlant but the improvement in the lives of a few million Venezuelanas have to offset the overall cost of breaking international law, with the increased risks for future peace

bought Ṁ250 YES

@MiguelLM sure but that's not what this question is asking about LOL

@SaviorofPlant see the market creator clarification:

https://manifold.markets/Gabrielle/will-venezuelans-be-better-off-at-t#mx7iea22kaa

@MiguelLM Oh I see. I think the economic improvement that can be expected here just from the lifting of US sanctions is substantial, but it will take a long time to make Venezuela's oil industry functional again, so there is a stronger NO case knowing this about the market's resolution

@SaviorofPlant what is your chance that this strike will lead to a regime change?

@MiguelLM https://x.com/paulmcleary/status/2007493532291063962

I'm not sure if this means "the VP will take over and listen to whatever I tell them" or "US troops will literally run the government" but I think the odds of an anti-US regime persisting through the threat of another coup, at least in the short term, are <10%

@SaviorofPlant thanks for the tweet. When did Trump say that? In his press conference?

@MiguelLM Yes

Base rates, folks.

opened a Ṁ50 YES at 45% order

Could you list some objective criteria you’ll use—eg GDP per capita, polls, unemployment, consumer sentiment, etc.?

@MachiNi I don’t trust myself to pick a set of objective criteria that I have faith will be trustworthy and meaningful. GDP is meaningless for a resource extractor, polling is easy to fake, etc.

If I’m presented with a set of possible criteria, I’ll strongly consider them, and I’ll put some time into thinking about criteria, but I don’t have anything I’m happy to go with immediately. Comparing country-size populations over time objectively is notoriously difficult.

@Gabrielle so vibes?

@MachiNi Vibes are the default, but I’ll do my best to find objective criteria that seem accurate and to find reporting that looks at this question. I might also choose to run a poll asking what people think. (Unfortunately I doubt I’ll be able to run a poll of Venezuelans asking them if they’re better off, but a trustworthy poll asking that would be the gold standard.)

How tight is your threshold for 'better' as opposed to 'the same'. For instance if Venezuelans mostly look to be about equally well off as before but there is preponderance of evidence that they are slightly better off on average, will you call that 'better'.

@Martlet If there really is a preponderance of evidence, and the evidence is trustworthy, I’ll follow that. But as a whole, I am interested in them being meaningfully better, something worth breaking international law.

@Gabrielle

I am interested in them being meaningfully better, something worth breaking international law.

Thanks for the clarification. I suggest incorporating this into the resolution criteria, as it is a significant consideration.

The use of force against a sovereign state to remove a head of state raises serious concerns under international law, particularly regarding the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and respect for state sovereignty. This could establish a precedent with broader implications if other major powers adopt similar actions in the future.

Accordingly, any requirement that improvements in Venezuelans’ living conditions outweigh these legal and normative costs would imply an exceptionally high bar.

@Gabrielle "worthy of breaking international law" is totally subjective. Some people would break international law for ten dollars, some people wouldn't do it to stop a genocide. The majority of Afghans polled in the 2000s/2010s said they had become better off since America's invasion, but lots of people still thought the invasion was morally wrong.