Whilst "Dutch disease" is a well established if not uncontentious theory, Venezuela has suffered notably worse effects in response to oil price downturns to every other oil-dependent country, and it's difficult not to see a link between that and the government's extreme antagonism to non-oil businesses and longstanding currency mismanagement (as well as the less-unusual corrupt control of the oil itself by regime-linked kleptocrats)

>Venezuela has suffered notably worse effects in response to oil price downturns to every other oil-dependent country

Largely because there are few countries that are quite that oil dependent. Russia's a screw up but even they aren't as oil dominated as Venezuela, for instance.

I suppose there's Iraq...

>the government's extreme antagonism to non-oil businesses

This antagonism dates back to the 2001 coup in which the leaders of those non-oil businesses banded together in an attempt to unseat Chavez and replace the democratically elected government with tanks.

Generally this kind of behavior is strongly frowned upon, when it's done against a government that is friendly to the US. But, when it is done against a government that nationalized US oil interests, the propaganda wheel spins the other way: as you said, "it's not them that were hostile to him, it's him that is too hostile to them".

Anyways, can point fingers all you like in that conflict (and all sides do), but the fact remains that the conflict simply would not have happened without the spoils of the oil resources to fight over.

Corruption was similarly driven by the vast natural resources, just as happens in Africa, in the Middle East, in Russia... in every country in the world with vast economy-dominating natural resources except that sole unafflicted country - Norway.

There's plenty of countries which derive as much or more income per capita from oil as Venezuela, and few of them are known for having other sources of income (though with the possible exception of wartorn Libya they've certainly done more to encourage them and less to discourage them than the Venezuelan government). For the most part they are (like their non-oil rich neighbours) not exactly bywords for good governance or equitable wealth distribution, but large segments of their population are not on the brink of starvation as a result of oil prices being below early 2014 levels whilst still high by historic standards.

It stretches credulity even further to believe that Venezuela's disastrous economic policies were the necessary and unavoidable consequence of a oil company strikes and short-lived military coup 16 years ago which was as unsuccessful as Castro's own attempts to overthrow an elected government with tanks a decade earlier. Especially not with periodic coup attempts and more regular mass strikes being an occupational hazard of being a Latam president regardless of oil wealth or lack thereof.

>Of the countries 'blessed' with massive natural resources - relative to the size of the economy, I can think of precisely one that hasn't been fucked up by it.

Norway ?

What about Australia, although as an Australian we do manage to mess us quite a lot of the natural bounty we inherited.

Australia's economy is not even close to being dominated by natural resources. Your mining boom also isn't that old (only about 10 years).

Nonetheless, it doesn't appear to be having a positive effect on your politics. Imagine if people like Gina Rinehart started to dominate.

Yes, Norway.