Venezuela's Next Step On Road To Communism - Banking and Steel Industries

[BPSCG]

Link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070503/D8OT4O100.html)


Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Thursday threatened to nationalize the country's banks and largest steel producer, accusing them of unscrupulous practices.

"Private banks have to give priority to financing the industrial sectors of Venezuela at low cost," Chavez said. "If banks don't agree with this, it's better that they go, that they turn over the banks to me, that we nationalize them and get all the banks to work for the development of the country and not to speculate and produce huge profits.""Huge profits." Love it. When (not if) Chavez takes over the banks, I think we'll see them nasty old huge profits go away. They'll go to Costa Rica or to the US or to China, where people actually understand how money works (think how inconceiveable having "China" in that sentence would have been twenty years ago, BTW).
Chavez also warned the government could take over steel producer Sidor, which is majority controlled by Luxembourg-based Ternium SA. (TX) Shares of Ternium fell 3.9 percent to $26.15 in U.S. trading after Chavez's comments.

Sidor "has created a monopoly" and sold the bulk of its production overseas, forcing local producers to import tubes and other products from China and elsewhere, Chavez said.

"If the company Sidor ... does not immediately agree to change this process, they will obligate me to nationalize it," Chavez said.

"I prefer not to," Chavez addedOh, I'm sure...

Chavez initiated a nationalization drive in January that is bringing the country's largest telephone company CANTV and the electricity sector under state control. The state oil company also took over the last privately run oil operations in the country from major international oil companies on Tuesday. What's left?

[Darth Rotor]

What's left?
Both of Chavez feet and hands, and all of his cronies?

DR

[Beerina]

If I were a banker, I would have little interest right now in financing an industrial sector of Venezuela, when seizure by the government of said industry could be the next thing around the corner.

It's also astounding how the hoi polloi buy into these promises to bash the heads of the evil people with money, so...

So, do what?

So give one of them power over all of them, something said person could never achieve in a free society. Anger, violence, guns, control. What a disgusting universe this is.

[marksman]

Where's Merko to defend this policy in the name of self-determination?

[Earthborn]

think how inconceiveable having "China" in that sentence would have been twenty years ago, BTWAren't banks in China nationalised?

[BPSCG]

Aren't banks in China nationalised?Yes. But as China becomes more and more capitalist, its state banks are losing market share to informal banks and lending arrangements (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_46/b3908048.htm). They still have a long way to go, but they're headed in the right direction - the opposite direction from Venezuela. Chavez would be well-advised to have a look at how China's experiment with socialism went, and how the country is prospering now, compared with thirty years ago.

[bozothedeathmachine]

China-schmina. Look at any country that attempted a centrally-planned economy. They all end in ruin. Unfortunately it's the populace that is ruined, not the "planners".

[Gurdur]

Damn Chavez. How dare he believe in self-determination? And all those Venezualens who support him; the very idea that they should control their natural resources!

And you are just so right this is all leading inescapably to everyone living in barracks and Communists taking over all private property. Thank-you for the Daily Sermon Of Outrage.

[WildCat]

Chavez is determined to completely ruin the economy of Venezuela. Any foreigner would be insane to invest a dime there now.

Anyone want to take bets on when the famine starts?

[marksman]

Damn Chavez. How dare he believe in self-determination? And all those Venezualens who support him; the very idea that they should control their natural resources!

And you are just so right this is all leading inescapably to everyone living in barracks and Communists taking over all private property. Thank-you for the Daily Sermon Of Outrage.
Thank you, Gurdur. This thread was getting almost reasonable.

[BPSCG]

Damn Chavez. How dare he believe in self-determination? And all those Venezualens who support him; the very idea that they should control their natural resources!

And you are just so right this is all leading inescapably to everyone living in barracks and Communists taking over all private property. Thank-you for the Daily Sermon Of Outrage.Why don't you put your money where Chavez's mouth is? Why don't you buy a bunch of stock in Venezuelan banks and steel companies? If Chavez is right, you'll make money. If he's wrong, well, it was probably because of CIA saboteurs; they always ruin it for everyone.

[Wat Tyler]

Why don't you put your money where Chavez's mouth is? Why don't you buy a bunch of stock in Venezuelan banks and steel companies? If Chavez is right, you'll make money. If he's wrong, well, it was probably because of CIA saboteurs; they always ruin it for everyone.

:newlol

I love you - your posts make it seem as though you are actually incapable of rational thought.

Gurdur makes a point along the lines of supporting Venezuleans' right to do what they want with their own national resources - such as nationalising Venezuelan companies in order to return all their profits to Venezuelans, instead of letting foreign shareholders get all the benefit of Venezuela's national resources.

You somehow decide then that 'Venezuelan companies NOT returning a greater amount of money to foreign shareholders will prove him wrong'.

And you also throw in an attempt to put words in his mouth at the end of the post!

You're priceless - but you really ought to sell tickets.
:hug3

[Gurdur]

Why don't you put your money where Chavez's mouth is? Why don't you buy a bunch of stock in Venezuelan banks ....
Because I am not Venezualan nor do I live in Venezuala. D'uh. I tend to only usually invest in the very local area where I live or in aid projects.

But thank-you for the Addendum On The Daily Sermon Of Horror.

[Ziggurat]

Damn Chavez. How dare he believe in self-determination?

As if that were the only issue. People invested their own money into the oil infrastructure in Venezuela. They did so with the understanding that they would have some ownership of what their investments produced. It's all well and good for you to say that the oil belongs to Venezuela and it's theirs to do with as they please, but what's happened is that Chavez has stolen the investment that people have made in the oil infrastructure, and he's violated a promise that was made when those oil rights were first sold. Whether or not you think the original terms were acceptable or not, renegging on existing deals and seizing private property is a bad thing. And it sends a message loud and clear: DO NOT invest in Venezuela, because no investment you make can ever be secure against the government arbitrarily seizing it. And the people who will suffer the most from lack of foreign investments in Venezuela will not be the big evil corporations, or greedy fatcat American capitalists. The people who will suffer the most from that, and suffer unnecessarily, are the Venezuelan poor. Chavez's nationalization campaign does not help them. ALL it does is consolidate Chavez's power. Are you honestly so blinded by the notion that if Chavez is pissing of conservatives he must be doing the right thing that you can't even see the damage he has done?

[Gurdur]

.... It's all well and good for you to say that the oil belongs to Venezuela and it's theirs to do with as they please, but what's happened is that Chavez has stolen the investment
This is the standard line of argument used against any kind of nationalization whatsoever.

I'm kind of immune to the tearful fallacious argument from pitifulness (argumentum ad misericordiam); large companies screwed Latin America over comprehensively. We're not talking about aged widowed grannies investing their money here, we're talking about huge companies, some of whom have a very dubious history. Most of the money they made flowed OUT, northwards and eastwards. Partial nationalization of certain industries -- which is what Chavez is doing, PARTIAL nationalization of CERTAIN industries -- is well appropriate in view of the economic situation.

He's certainly doing better than the approved neoliberal programs in Latin America.
he's violated a promise
Bollocks. Unless he made the promise himself, he's not violating it.
DO NOT invest in Venezuela
Puh-leeze. Tell me how well neoliberal Brazil did for the Brazileans, or Argentina for the Argentineans. Economies tanked because all profits made flowed out of the area, way out.

I'm quite ready to have a discussion on all the pro's and con's of nationalization. I see good arguments on both sides, I see evidence on both sides, and I see very different situations. But I will not approve of artificial hysteria, waving of the Red Menace flag, or very simplistic political-economic shibboleths which simply are untrue if stated as general rules.

As for the specific case of Venezuala, it could easily go well for the Venezualans, it might go bad, time will tell. But it wil be time in this particular case, not simplistic slogans.

If you still are wanting to throw me into the commie corner, I will state upfront I am more of the Rheinland Capitalist school, which I assume you know of.

Are you honestly so blinded ....
I like to think of myself as far-sighted.

[WildCat]

Gurdur makes a point along the lines of supporting Venezuleans' right to do what they want with their own national resources - such as nationalising Venezuelan companies in order to return all their profits to Venezuelans, instead of letting foreign shareholders get all the benefit of Venezuela's national resources.
Foreign shareholders get all the benefits? This is complete nonsense. Venezuela makes ~$35 billion annually from oil sales. Let's see how much they make in a few more years, as the infrastructure made possible by foreign investment breaks down.

[Gurdur]

Foreign shareholders get all the benefits? This is complete nonsense. Venezuela makes ~$35 billion annually from oil sales. Let's see how much they make in a few more years, as the infrastructure made possible by foreign investment breaks down.
Come on.
The nationalization has only been partial, the foreign companies still maintain some presence, and the Venezeualan government are not incapable of making such investment themselves. They certainly can afford it now.

I mean, puh-leeeeze. We can debate this all in an intelligent fashion, or we can simply deal with all these lobbed and untrue clichés.

[WildCat]

Come on.
The nationalization has only been partial, the foreign companies still maintain some presence, and the Venezeualan government are not incapable of making such investment themselves. They certainly can afford it now.
Time will tell. But I'd bet the farm that all the nationalized wealth goes to Chavez's friends, cronys, and family. They will demand bribes, skim off the top, not invest enough to keep the infrastructure from crumbling, and basically do what has been done in every other developing country with nationalized oil. How's it working out in Mexico btw?

I mean, puh-leeeeze. We can debate this all in an intelligent fashion, or we can simply deal with all these lobbed and untrue clichés.
Can you find an example of any country outside of northern Europe that has had success by nationalizing their oil business?

[marksman]

large companies screwed Latin America over comprehensively.
The large companies being nationalized, or some other large company. Because it doesn't seem like Chavez is nationalizing the banks becaus ehtye hurt Venezuela. He says he's doing it because he disagrees with their lending criteria. He wants them to take on more risk at lower interest.

If nationalization were penalty for a mismanaged company, your argument would be pertinent. But that's not what even Chavez claims to be doing.

It seems you're making the argument that because the Dole Fruit Company screwed Nicaragua, that Venezuela is justified in nationalizing the Venezielan bank.

And of course, nobody is claiming that Chavez, as an elected leader lacks the authority to do this. They're criticizing his policy as unwise. So your reference to self-determination (which I assume was a response to my joking about it) is off the mark.

[marksman]

I mean, puh-leeeeze. We can debate this all in an intelligent fashion, or we can simply deal with all these lobbed and untrue clichés.

That insult would have a lot more impact if the arguments you were making were logically constructed and clearly stated instead of appearing themselves to be lobbed and untrue clichés. As of right now, they're lacking one of these elements (not sure which).

[Gurdur]

That insult would have a lot more impact if the arguments you were making were logically constructed and clearly stated instead of appearing themselves to be lobbed and untrue clichés. As of right now, they're lacking one of these elements (not sure which).
Oh puh-leeeze.

So far -- with the one sole exception of WildCat, who asked an intelligent question -- it's being all tired old clichés trotted out unimaginatively. So you're complaining I haven't given you some interesting, complex, well-researched and -referenced argument? Tsk. My point is, were you to start, I would follow suit; I'm just tearing apart the artificial hysteria and the untrue clichés here as yet. Haven't had much opportunity for the meaty stuff.

[Gurdur]

Time will tell. But I'd bet the farm that all the nationalized wealth goes to Chavez's friends, cronys, and family.
Sounds to me like a straight case of prejudicial damnation. Got any evidence?
How's it working out in Mexico btw?
Bad question for you, I would think, Mexico being a very neoliberal-run country. Not going all that well either; NAFTA hasn't really worked to Mexico's advantage. How's the income-gap and general infrastructure coming along in Mexico? How are electorate expectations coming along? And the story behind the Chiapis rebellion? The Zapatistas?
Cn you find an example of any country outside of northern Europe that has had success by nationalizing their oil business?
Finally, an intelligent question. Lessee, oil not being my speciality I would have to look it up, but if I think in parallels, then nationalization of certain industries very much does help a country -- rail, etc. Will get back to you on oil. That is of course providing I don't get tarred here too much as a commie, just slows things down if I have to deal with the crap,

[Ziggurat]

This is the standard line of argument used against any kind of nationalization whatsoever.

I'm kind of immune to the tearful fallacious argument from pitifulness (argumentum ad misericordiam); large companies screwed Latin America over comprehensively. We're not talking about aged widowed grannies investing their money here, we're talking about huge companies, some of whom have a very dubious history.

Boy, did you miss the point. I'm not TALKING about how unfair it is to the big corporations: I'm talking about the fact that nationalizations tell potential investors that their money isn't safe in that country, and that WILL keep them from investing more money in the country. And when foreign investments stop coming in, the economy suffers. And who suffers first and most? The poor, as always.

Most of the money they made flowed OUT, northwards and eastwards.

So the hell what? Lump theory of wealth is false. It doesn't MATTER if most of the money foreign investors make gets returned to them, the local economies still BENEFIT from them, and they're BETTER OFF with more foreign investment. Why the hell do you think China's economy has been skyrocketting? Because they've figured out how to get massive influxes of foreign investment.

He's certainly doing better than the approved neoliberal programs in Latin America.

Uh, no. He isn't. Venezuela is falling apart. He's basically stopped investing in infrastructure maintenance (the main road from the capital to the airport was shut down because a major bridge was about to collapse, and I think remains unfixed after more than a year), oil production appears to be declining, crime is rampant and growing in Caracas... it's a disaster.

Bollocks. Unless he made the promise himself, he's not violating it.

The promise was made by the state of Venezuela. It's been abbrogated by the state of Venezuela. There is and has always been an expectation of continuity for obligations incurred by governments even when the leadership changes, because it is the state and not the individual which makes those promises. So this defense of Chavez is nonsensical, unless you're claiming that "L'etat, c'est moi" applies to Chavez. I'm really not sure you want to push that position, though.

[Gurdur]

Boy, did you miss the point.
Tsk. I made a direct refutation of two points of yours, missed nothing at all. No need to be rude, especially when you're absoultely wrong.
I'm not TALKING about how unfair it is to the big corporations: I'm talking about the fact that nationalizations tell potential investors that their money isn't safe in that country,
Also nonsense, since we are only talking about specific industries here.
And when foreign investments stop coming in, the economy suffers. And who suffers first and most? The poor, as always.
Oh puh-leeze, the poor weren't doing well under the previous neoliberalism, were they now? The reason why they all voted for Chavez. If you are going to pretend to me that multinational investment in Latin America has been generally good for the poor there, I am going to laugh my head off.
Spefically, sometimes; generally, no.

So the hell what? Lump theory of wealth is false. It doesn't MATTER if most of the money foreign investors make gets returned to them, the local economies still BENEFIT from them, and they're BETTER OFF
Twaddle, complete and utter twaddle. Tell me now, how much was Standard Fruit good for the local peoples?
Why the hell do you think China's economy has been skyrocketting?
Because they started from a very low position, and because they really got into manufacturing in a big way. What does that have to do with oil? Hmmm?
Venezuela is falling apart.
Evidence?
crime is rampant and growing in Caracas... it's a disaster.
Evidence? BTW, how is crime in neoliberal Rio de Janiero these days? Please DO explain that one.
The promise was made by the state of Venezuela. It's been abbrogated by the state of Venezuela.
Tsk. A state is at every liberty to reverse previous unfair settlements. Andf face up to it, an awful lot of extremely unfair settlements were made over the decades, weren't they?

BTW, Mossadegh. We would have been saved a ****-load of problems had Churchill accepted Mossadegh, and had the USA not gone along with Churchill's neocolonialism. Caused a lot of backlash which is still playing out now

[Ziggurat]

Gurdur, you keep using the phrase "neo-liberalism". I don't know exactly what you mean by that phrase, but either it means something different from free market capitalism, or you're smoking crack, because Venezuela has never been a bastion of capitalism. Neither, in fact, have any of the other countries you listed. Chile (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Chile) has been by far the freest country in the region economically, and they've done quite well with that economic liberalization (this whole "neo" crap is worthless in this discussion).

[shecky]

WTF gives a crap about a third rate president of a second tier South American country? Foreign investors/companies? Thems the breaks. There's always a risk when dealing with these backwaters.

[BPSCG]

Bollocks. Unless he made the promise himself, he's not violating it.Heh. In the early days of the American republic, there were those who counseled that the US Treasury should repudiate all debts incurred by the Continental Congress (during the Revolutionary War) and the congress under the Articles of Confederation (predating the current Constitution).

The first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, refused. He argued that while repudiating past debts might be beneficial in the very short run, it would be disastrous for a new republic to get a reputation for not living up to its promises. It's probably not accurate to say that nobody would do business with such a country. But when such a country comes wanting to borrow money, investors are going to evaluate the risk and decide that they want a better return on that country's bonds than on the bonds of a country that hasn't defaulted on its obligations or seized a single industry in over 200 years.

At the very least, Chavez is raising the cost of the interest Venezuela will be paying on its bonds. That interest will be paid by Venezuela's taxpayers.

[Gurdur]

Gurdur, you keep using the phrase "neo-liberalism". I don't know exactly what you mean by that phrase
The usual meaning, It's quite a common term in politics and economics. Where have you been?
but either it means something different from free market capitalism
*sigh*
Zig, completeley regardless of what your favourite political prejudices are, neoliberalism is one modern form of capitalism. And regardless of what you wish to ideologically promote, capitalism has indeed been active and implemented throughout Latin America in many different forms for over 100 years.
, or you're smoking crack, because Venezuela has never been a bastion of capitalism.
Bollocks to the assertion there too; the forms of capitalism it was previously under may well have been forms of capitalism you ideologically disapprove of, but they were indeed forms of capitalism.

Look, Zig, I stick to mainstream vocabulary and economics.

Let's not have any of the usual "Pure Capitalism = My Brand Of Capitalism / No True Scotsman fallacy" crap here, k?
and they've done quite well with that economic liberalization
Could have done far better, Bad case, Chile, only getting better now. You're not going to pretend to me that Pinochet was out there to help the poor, are you? Or that his actions helped them? I can only laugh my guts out so much, you know, without risking a major hernia.
(this whole "neo" crap is worthless in this discussion).
*sigh*
Zig, if you don't know the terms of mainstream economics and political science, best to read up on them, not kneejerk denounce them.
, or you're smoking crack
Tsk. And to think after the global warming / malaria thread you should start wanting to think that. I am muchly disappointed in your judgmental powers.

[Thunder]

This is a good thing. We need a few communist states out there to compare to capitalist nations. Makes us look really successful while they always fail.

[Gurdur]

We need more clichés! We must march foward under clichés! Reds under the beds! Commies! etc.

[BPSCG]

*sigh*
Zig, if you don't know the terms of mainstream economics and political science, best to read up on them, not kneejerk denounce them.Gurdur, knock off the condescending Al Gore impressions. FWIW, I'd never heard the term either, and had to look up its very short entry in wikipedia. I guess we're all uneducated boobs who should be sitting at your feet absorbing your precious pearls. To quote you, "puh-leeze."

Okay, so neoliberalism
promotes a stable currency, a balanced budget, free market capitalism, and free trade. Characteristic aspects include expansion of the market to a 24-hour global trading cycle, contract maximalization, increase in the frequency of contracts, continuous assessment, and derivative markets. That's a formula that's worked very well for a number of countries. I see Noam Chomsky disapproves of it, which isn't surprising. Now what's your problem with it?

[Ziggurat]

Gurdur, I never said anything about Pinochet being out to help the poor. He wasn't: he was out to help himself. But regardless of why he did what he did, he didn't screw up Chile's economy nearly as much as various South American socialist and marxist leaders have. Furthermore, he hasn't been in power for quite some time now, so my point isn't even about the economy under Pinochet.

[Luciana]

Can I make a drive-by post 'cause I'll sleep in 10 minutes?? Normally, whatever Americans (read, Washington) happen to think it's right for Latin America... it's not. It's only serves US's interests. So I'm very suspicious about what is sold to Americans regarding Chavez, because it's certainly self-serving ideological BS. And, btw, go Gurdur!!! :)

[Freddy]

Can I make a drive-by post 'cause I'll sleep in 10 minutes?? Normally, whatever Americans (read, Washington) happen to think it's right for Latin America... it's not. It's only serves US's interests. So I'm very suspicious about what is sold to Americans regarding Chavez, because it's certainly self-serving ideological BS. And, btw, go Gurdur!!! :)

It's not only Americans who think Chavez is ruining Venezuela's economy.

[WildCat]

Can I make a drive-by post 'cause I'll sleep in 10 minutes?? Normally, whatever Americans (read, Washington) happen to think it's right for Latin America... it's not. It's only serves US's interests. So I'm very suspicious about what is sold to Americans regarding Chavez, because it's certainly self-serving ideological BS. And, btw, go Gurdur!!! :)
The problems in Latin America are primarily because of rampant government corruption. You can't get a cop in Mexico to investigate a crime without paying a bribe first. Need a permit? Pay a bribe. Need a business license? Pay a bribe. etc etc etc... Luciana, why don't you tell us how it's possible to have illegal logging destroying your country's forests? This isn't the kind of thing that happens in the middle of the night without anyone knowing about it. It's happening because people are being paid off, and nothing gets done about it because this practice is by and large accepted throughout Latin America. No economy can thrive in such an kleptocratic environment.

Castro doesn't give a damn about the average Cuban, he and his family and cronys are doing fine. The rest of the place can get by on food rations. Blame the big bad US, ignore that man behind the curtain. This is the model Chavez wants to emulate, go ahead cheer him on.

What the US did 100 years ago isn't why you're where you're at today. Blame the US all you want, but until you clean up your own house your problems will continue.

[marksman]

Oh puh-leeeze.
Are you next going to tell me to talk to the hand? Is there any cliche you won't invoke even while calling other people's posts cliched?

So far -- with the one sole exception of WildCat, who asked an intelligent question
I'll admit I didn't ask a question, but I directly critiqued the logic of your argument. You ignored that post and decided only to respond to the post that called attention to your ad hominem strategy. I find that very telling.

were you to start, I would follow suit
Except you didn't.

[Earthborn]

Can you find an example of any country outside of northern Europe that has had success by nationalizing their oil business?Yes. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain...

[Luciana]

The problems in Latin America are primarily because of rampant government corruption.


No. Most of the problems stem from underdevelopment. As economies grow, the middle-class is strengthened and democracy reinforced, corruption is less accepted.

Luciana, why don't you tell us how it's possible to have illegal logging destroying your country's forests? This isn't the kind of thing that happens in the middle of the night without anyone knowing about it.


That would be a long answer. Let's see... why don't you tell me how the wealthiest country in the world can't stop about 500,000 people a year from crossing a stupid 3,000 km line?? It's been happening for decades, come on. It's long, but it's a line, and being top of the world in technology, just come up with a decent surveillance system, for Christ's sake!

Now you tell how can a middle-income country like Brazil take care of 5,000,000 km2 of dense forests, which borders 7 countries and is populated by foreing militias and drug dealers? Is there a way to protect the forest? Of course there is. But it's expensive. Damn expensive, and Brazil can't afford it. I wonder if any country could.

You can blame ALL the problems of South America on kleptocracy, but that takes a wilfully distorted and prejudiced view.


No economy can thrive in such an kleptocratic environment.


Oh, I see. So that's why China can't seem to grow? Poor China, it's so corrupt that it stagnated!

And when Mexico and Brazil grew fast from 1930s to 1980s it's because kleptocray was temporarily lifted? The same lift enforced on developing countries with current rapid GDP growth? Italy is one of the poorest nations out there, right? And Russia is still rural.

Corruption is a difficult that is overcome by economic development. It is not an inherent trait of some countries.


What the US did 100 years ago isn't why you're where you're at today. Blame the US all you want, but until you clean up your own house your problems will continue.


Why the overdefensiveness?? When did I blame the US for anything? I said "Normally, whatever Americans (read, Washington) happen to think it's right for Latin America... it's not. It's only serves US's interests. So I'm very suspicious about what is sold to Americans regarding Chavez, because it's certainly self-serving ideological BS."

I stand by what I said. Have you ever touched a history book? How, for example, in the 1940 and 1950s many US politicians and economists insisted that Latin American should remain rural, because that was what they were best at? Or how the US supported dictatorships (in fact, anti-communism police)? How the US was against Brazil building nuclear plants, even though those allowed for the growth of our industrialization? So yeah, what I'm saying is that we're tired or recipes from Washington because a) they're often wrong , b) they envisage their own interest first and foremost, then want to insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that those suggestions really really are the best.

[WildCat]

No. Most of the problems stem from underdevelopment. As economies grow, the middle-class is strengthened and democracy reinforced, corruption is less accepted.
Evidence this is happening? And if Chavez manages to increase the middle class by adopting Cuban-style communism it will be the first time that's ever happened.I wouldn't hold my breath waiting if I were you.

That would be a long answer. Let's see... why don't you tell me how the wealthiest country in the world can't stop about 500,000 people a year from crossing a stupid 3,000 km line?? It's been happening for decades, come on. It's long, but it's a line, and being top of the world in technology, just come up with a decent surveillance system, for Christ's sake!
Surveillance systems don't apprehend people coming over a border. You need people to do that. And even if you do apprehend them, they'll just try again until they succeed. And you're going to compare this to...

Now you tell how can a middle-income country like Brazil take care of 5,000,000 km2 of dense forests, which borders 7 countries and is populated by foreing militias and drug dealers? Is there a way to protect the forest? Of course there is. But it's expensive. Damn expensive, and Brazil can't afford it. I wonder if any country could.
The trees aren't being hauled away by hiding them inside seat cushions and in the trunks of cars. They're loaded on to giant trucks and driven right down the highway in plain view. Even the poorest of nations knows where their roads are. Logging also requires giant buildings to house saw mills. Bottom line, illegal logging requires too much infrastructure to go by unnoticed. It's happening because people (government officials) are being paid to look the other way, from the forest all the way to the ports where they are loaded on to ships.

You can blame ALL the problems of South America on kleptocracy, but that takes a wilfully distorted and prejudiced view.
Not all, but that's where the majority of it stems from. Corruption to the extent it is accepted in Latin America has a suffocating effect on the economy.

Oh, I see. So that's why China can't seem to grow? Poor China, it's so corrupt that it stagnated!
China isn't corrupt in the manner that LA is, and the penalties are quite harsh for those who are caught.

And when Mexico and Brazil grew fast from 1930s to 1980s it's because kleptocray was temporarily lifted? The same lift enforced on developing countries with current rapid GDP growth?
what happened in the 1980's?

Italy is one of the poorest nations out there, right? And Russia is still rural.
Both economies are stagnant, and both also have big problems with corruption. see a pattern here?

Corruption is a difficult that is overcome by economic development. It is not an inherent trait of some countries.
I disagree. Some cultures accept it more than others, and those that do tend to stay economic backwaters.

Why the overdefensiveness?? When did I blame the US for anything? I said "Normally, whatever Americans (read, Washington) happen to think it's right for Latin America... it's not. It's only serves US's interests. So I'm very suspicious about what is sold to Americans regarding Chavez, because it's certainly self-serving ideological BS."
Believe it or not, our media is not controlled in any way, shape, or form by the US government. Chavez makes it perfectly clear in his own words what his goals are, no spin from anyone is required. If you doubt he means what he is plainly saying then make your case.

I stand by what I said. Have you ever touched a history book? How, for example, in the 1940 and 1950s many US politicians and economists insisted that Latin American should remain rural, because that was what they were best at? Or how the US supported dictatorships (in fact, anti-communism police)? How the US was against Brazil building nuclear plants, even though those allowed for the growth of our industrialization? So yeah, what I'm saying is that we're tired or recipes from Washington because a) they're often wrong , b) they envisage their own interest first and foremost, then want to insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that those suggestions really really are the best.
What happened more than half a century ago is irrelevant today. And the parts of LA that never had much influence from the US (Argentina for example) are in the same boat. For better or worse, LA is on its own now. Perhaps your politicians score points from the poor masses by blaming all your problems on the big bad USA, but such rhetoric will not solve the systemic problems in your economies. Nor will modeling your economies on a system that has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried before. It will not be the US that suffers in the long run from Chavez's policies, but Venezuelans. There's an old saying here - don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

[Wat Tyler]

Foreign shareholders get all the benefits? This is complete nonsense. Venezuela makes ~$35 billion annually from oil sales.


Out of total oilfield revenues of how much?

Because if the companies are taking only 20% of the profits, then that means, per the terms of the Production Sharing Agreements, that they've already recovered ALL of their investment costs, and are now taking money out of Venezuela in exchange for doing NOTHING.


Let's see how much they make in a few more years, as the infrastructure made possible by foreign investment breaks down.

So, you are saying that a nationalised Venezuelan State Oil company will spend NONE of its revenues on maintenance & research?

Chavez has started spending money to actually educate the people of Venezuela, and to provide basic Health Care for them - rather than letting foreigners send it off to make their already-rich shareholders even richer.

This strikes me as A Good Thing - because, from my own narrow, self-interested POV, it means that the Venezuelans will no longer be illiterate, unhealthy peons whose country requires loans/aid out of my taxes, but will instead be able to start up their own businesses, invent stuff, and generally produce products and services that I (and my compatriots) can trade for with them.

[Wat Tyler]

So the hell what? Lump theory of wealth is false. It doesn't MATTER if most of the money foreign investors make gets returned to them, the local economies still BENEFIT from them, and they're BETTER OFF with more foreign investment.


And what about, once ALL of the invested money HAS been returned, and the foreign companies are just milking the country?

How does THAT situation benefit the country in question?


Why the hell do you think China's economy has been skyrocketting? Because they've figured out how to get massive influxes of foreign investment.


I'd say because they have opened-up their country without anything in the way of Labour Laws, and with a docile populace available to work at slave-labour rates to Western investors.

And these Western investors have therefore shut down plants - and thereby cut jobs - in their own countries and shifted production to China, because they can maximise their profits that way.

It's not Rocket Science, is it?

But is it equitable, just, or fair?

And, cui bono?

It seems to me that the resultant increasing unemployment in my country, and increased polarisation of wealth here, has resulting in an increase in drug abuse, violent crime, and theft.

But of course - silly me! - these things don't affect the hereditarily-wealthy people who own and run banks and oil firms; they only affect the great mass of the population - so they don't matter, do they?


Uh, no. He isn't. Venezuela is falling apart. He's basically stopped investing in infrastructure maintenance (the main road from the capital to the airport was shut down because a major bridge was about to collapse, and I think remains unfixed after more than a year), oil production appears to be declining, crime is rampant and growing in Caracas... it's a disaster.


Hmm, you make Venezuela sound like the UK or USA.


The promise was made by the state of Venezuela. It's been abbrogated by the state of Venezuela. There is and has always been an expectation of continuity for obligations incurred by governments even when the leadership changes, because it is the state and not the individual which makes those promises.


Kinda like Yeltsin defaulting on his Foreign Debts in the 1990's, huh?

Remind me again, what punitive actions were taken against newly-capitalist Russia for that?

Also, given that Venezuela produces OIL, that the economy of the WHOLE of our global civilisation depends upon OIL, and that we have now reached the era of Peak Oil Production, I don't really foresee a problem for Venezuela before their oil runs out.

Do you?

[Wat Tyler]

Castro doesn't give a damn about the average Cuban, he and his family and cronys are doing fine. The rest of the place can get by on food rations. Blame the big bad US, ignore that man behind the curtain. This is the model Chavez wants to emulate, go ahead cheer him on.


Which is such a contrast to the likes of Haiti, isn't it?

BTW, I agree that Castro is about as desirable a ruler as 'good old' Uncle Joe Stalin - but it seems fairly obvious to me that a total trade embargo for nearly 50 years from the only country in the region with any actual money 'may' have had a 'slightly' deleterious effect on the country's economy.

Also, what Chavez is trying to do is set up an alternative to Washington-controlled financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank.

He has paid off all Venezuela's foreign debts early, and has spent the last few years drumming up support for his ideas across Latin/South America, using Venezuela's Oil Revenues as a bankroll.

As his regional support 'in America's back yard' appears to be growing, I expect a US invasion of his country just as soon as your Armed Forces are no longer tied up in Iraq.

[BPSCG]

Chavez has started spending money to actually educate the people of Venezuela, and to provide basic Health Care for them...

This strikes me as A Good Thing - because, from my own narrow, self-interested POV, it means that the Venezuelans will no longer be illiterate, unhealthy peons whose country requires loans/aid out of my taxes, but will instead be able to start up their own businesses, invent stuff, and generally produce products and services that I (and my compatriots) can trade for with them.There's an old saying that "second marriages are an example of the triumph of hope over experience."

Belief that communism will improve people's lives - "This time fer shoor!"* - is another example.

* For proof, click here (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=730894).

[Gurdur]

There's an old saying that "second marriages are an example of the triumph of hope over experience."
Belief that communism will improve people's lives - "This time fer shoor!"* - is another example.

* For proof, click here (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=730894).

1) Chavez != communism

That's one of the false and most hysterical equivalences I object to most in this thread. Bluntly, Chavez, whether you agree with him or not, whether he succeeds or not, whether you like him or not, is not pushing communism. Please, study a bit more political science or history or something.

2) nationalization of certain industries != communism

Just to get that one potential one out of the way.

3) I may always be wrong, but until shown otherwise, I refuse to believe that the anti-Chavez sentiment expressed in this thread has any basis at all whatsoever in concern for the poor of Venezuala, or for the poor overall at all. In fact, I get disgusted when people dress up their prejudices as somehow supposedly being for the betterment of the poor. Sheer hypocrisy of the worst kind

4) Commercial deals can be re-written where the state does it or justice demands it. Get over it, stop whining. The question is how and why it's done, not if it's done at all. Get over yourselves; we are not slaves to previously-made unjust commercial deals. Too bad.

5) One thing I would really like to know, if any one of the anti-Chavez lot would care to answer truthfully:
Why TF all this hysteria about Chavez? You people have me really baffled. I mean, you're all acting like as if he was invading Texas or something. Your outrage seems waaaaaaaaay over-proportional to the actual situation.

6) Last thing: a lot of poor-mouthing going on here, and it looks only just like weird sour-grapes whining. Talking about Venezuala crumbling without any evidence to show it is? Predictions of despotism, collapse, doom and gloom without so far a shred of evidence?

And laughably, predictions that Chavez will come begging cap in hand later for money. Sheeeeesh. Get a grip, folks, with oil prices the way they are and the direction they're headed in, Chavez has nowhere to go but up. He can't help but succeed. Purely accidental, but there you go. History is contingent. And all the poor-mouthing about him begging later looks far more like simple whining than anything else, and I am quite dispassionate about this all.

I think that sums it all up nicely; maybe I will drop in later with stats about nationalized industries, since I find that an interesting area in and of itself. Maybe some of you could actually contribute some meat, rather than all this empty emo and outraged sloganizing.

But do tell me: WTF all the fuss? REALLY bloody weird, all ths fuss being made. You're all really over-reacting badly.

BTW, nationalization of the Suez Canal. Worked out very well for the Egyptians in the end, and the USA even ended up backing them in effect on it. History, people, learn from it.

[Luciana]

Evidence this is happening? And if Chavez manages to increase the middle class by adopting Cuban-style communism it will be the first time that's ever happened.I wouldn't hold my breath waiting if I were you.

Non sequitur.

Surveillance systems don't apprehend people coming over a border. You need people to do that. And even if you do apprehend them, they'll just try again until they succeed. And you're going to compare this to...

Oh, but this is the wealthiest country in the world, who can't take care of a 3,000km line. Really, how do you compare that to...


The trees aren't being hauled away by hiding them inside seat cushions and in the trunks of cars. They're loaded on to giant trucks and driven right down the highway in plain view. Even the poorest of nations knows where their roads are. Logging also requires giant buildings to house saw mills. Bottom line, illegal logging requires too much infrastructure to go by unnoticed. It's happening because people (government officials) are being paid to look the other way, from the forest all the way to the ports where they are loaded on to ships.

Inform yourself better. Roads, what roads? Road are almost nonexistent in the Amazon. Most of it is flooded for 6 months a year. Have you ever seen it a map, specially the size and complexity of the Amazon River basin? Do you know how long it takes, by boat, to go from one populated area to another? Days. Once the satellite images indicate that there's a clearance in the road (eta: forest), by the time officers get there, it's all gone. If the are is accessible at all after a rain. Do you know how many of these rivers lead to other rivers that reach other countries? How many people, helicopters, air bases and boats would you need to protect a 5,000,000 km2 forest?

I'm not denying there is corruption. What I'm saying is it's extremely expensive to keep the forest intact, and that if trees are being felled is not because of "kleptocracy", because the problem is more complex than that. And that if the US haven't found the means to prevent people from entering its borders, how is it reasonable to expect that Brazil protect such a huge forest?


Not all, but that's where the majority of it stems from. Corruption to the extent it is accepted in Latin America has a suffocating effect on the economy.

Evidence? Most LA countries have grown considerably in the 20th. century, with the exception of Uruguay and Argentina, whose GDP per capita actually shrank.

Don't think I'm "pro" corruption. My point is that you're oversimplifying things to adjust it to your prejudiced and ignorant views.

China isn't corrupt in the manner that LA is, and the penalties are quite harsh for those who are caught.

Inform yourself better. Go to transparency.org, to all indexes listing corruption level/perceptions, etc. China is right there with most LA countries, if not tied. By your logic, China couldn't be growing.

what happened in the 1980's?

Debt crisis. Read up on it.

Both economies are stagnant, and both also have big problems with corruption. see a pattern here?

Think big. You said that economies can't thrive if they're corrupt. Think in terms of the 20th. century - what Japan and Russia were and what they are now. They have had their ups and downs (and Russia, the disgrace of communism), but they have grown spectacularly since the 1900s.

I disagree. Some cultures accept it more than others, and those that do tend to stay economic backwaters.

You're twisting everything. They are not corrupt because they're inherently so; they're corrupt because they're in a backwards stage of development. To make it a fair comparison, you'd have to compare corruption levels of countries while in the same stage of development.


Believe it or not, our media is not controlled in any way, shape, or form by the US government. Chavez makes it perfectly clear in his own words what his goals are, no spin from anyone is required. If you doubt he means what he is plainly saying then make your case.

Strawman - I never said the press in the US was controlled. I do find it to be ideologically tainted and prone to hysteria. Chavez is a menace? Who profits from saying that he's a menace? Sure, he antagonizes the US plainly, but does the US feel threatened because of it? Please.


What happened more than half a century ago is irrelevant today. And the parts of LA that never had much influence from the US (Argentina for example) are in the same boat. For better or worse, LA is on its own now. Perhaps your politicians score points from the poor masses by blaming all your problems on the big bad USA, but such rhetoric will not solve the systemic problems in your economies. Nor will modeling your economies on a system that has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried before. It will not be the US that suffers in the long run from Chavez's policies, but Venezuelans. There's an old saying here - don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

Omg, how many clichés. I won't even try to parse that. Geez.

[Luciana]

Well said, Gurdur.

Right after President Lula's elections I read many articles, on newspapers of all ideologies, horrified at having a left-wing president in Brazil. Oooooh. It's like a major disgrace had befallen Brazil. The future of the continent was threatened because, well, he'd want to build a nuclear bomb, close the country, maybe support Castro financially, be a champion of anti-Americanism, etc. Everybody seemed to lament the fate of Brazil and fear the ensuing instability and civil wars in South America.

Oh, well.

Also, who here is knowledgeable about Venezuelan economy? I see statements full of self-righteousness and absolute conclusions. You know what? I do not know if nationalization will be better for Venezuela's economy. And that's why I refrain from having an opinion. Other countries have nationalized their resources with no grim consequences.

For all I know, Chavez might want to divert international investments to other sectors of the economy. Or maybe he already has enough money on his pockets to keep investing in the oil business. Maybe he's worried about the royalties and profits that are sent abroad as they might destabilize trade balance for decades to come. I can think of other reasons on top of my head if I stop and think instead of just assuming he's a mad dictator.

[balrog666]

This will end Venezuelan currency convertiblility and kill all foreign trade. Like some African countries, freighters will arrive empty and leave full.

Mass starvation and a Stone Age economy still lie ahead for Chavez and his cronies.

[Gurdur]

This will end Venezuelan currency convertiblility and kill all foreign trade. Like some African countries, freighters will arrive empty and leave full. Mass starvation and a Stone Age economy still lie ahead for Chavez and his cronies.
Thank-you for your thoughtful, well-attributed and -referenced comments, that were so handily substantiated by all the peer-reviewed analyses you so considerately supplied as well, and no doubt succeeding generations will study your prophecies.

However, I must point out that your post was badly incomplete because you left out the vital concluding sentence of,

"And then ALIEN ZOMBIES WILL COME DOWN AND EAT THEIR BRAINS! CHAVEZ IS JUST SO PWNED, LOL OMG LOL!!!Eleventy-eleven!"

[bozothedeathmachine]

I expect a US invasion of his country just as soon as your Armed Forces are no longer tied up in Iraq.

We invade in 3012, then. Consider yourself warned, Hugo!

[Gurdur]

We invade in 3012, then. Consider yourself warned, Hugo!
Now THAT was funny. Nice one!

[balrog666]

Thank-you for your thoughtful, well-attributed and -referenced comments, that were so handily substantiated by all the peer-reviewed analyses you so considerately supplied as well, and no doubt succeeding generations will study your prophecies.

However, I must point out that your post was badly incomplete because you left out the vital concluding sentence of,

"And then ALIEN ZOMBIES WILL COME DOWN AND EAT THEIR BRAINS! CHAVEZ IS JUST SO PWNED, LOL OMG LOL!!!Eleventy-eleven!"

I figured someone like you would add that.

[Ziggurat]

And what about, once ALL of the invested money HAS been returned, and the foreign companies are just milking the country?

How does THAT situation benefit the country in question?


If the investment is successful, it creates wealth. That's how people usually get rich, in case you didn't know. Yes, they get a net return on their investment, but because wealth gets created, money also gets put into the local economies. The local workers don't work for free, you know. And while their wages may be low compared to western workers, they're high compared to other local jobs. And that money is coming in from outside, which means it's a net plus for the local economy. But you didn't see that: you can only focus on where the investment money went, because you evidently don't understand the concept of wealth creation.

I'd say because they have opened-up their country without anything in the way of Labour Laws, and with a docile populace available to work at slave-labour rates to Western investors.

First off, there's no such thing as slave labor wages: that's the whole point of slave labor, you don't GET wages. Secondly, they get paid better than they ever were under the former communist system. For the lucky ones who are part of this western exploitation, their standard of living has skyrocketed. The people really getting screwed over in China now aren't the people employed through western investments, it's the great mass of peasants who still engage in subsistence farming. And they were getting screwed over just as much (plus getting starved to death) under the old communist system. The communists had decades in China where they had GENUINE slave labor, and they couldn't lift up the economy.

And these Western investors have therefore shut down plants - and thereby cut jobs - in their own countries and shifted production to China, because they can maximise their profits that way.

Well, yes. And that's been a NET GOOD for the world: second-world labor becomes productive for the first time, and first-world labor shifts towards other sectors.

But is it equitable, just, or fair?

Equitable? For who? It's certainly MORE equitable for chinese workers than it was before. After all, why should it be impossible for them to get a better job just because their political leadership bought into insane notions of economics?

And, cui bono?

Oh please. Like you'd ever ask this question regarding statist intervention in economic matters.

It seems to me that the resultant increasing unemployment in my country, and increased polarisation of wealth here, has resulting in an increase in drug abuse, violent crime, and theft.

Go read some Theodore Dalrymple (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html). He's got a hell of a lot more to say about the sources of England's social problems than you do. The problem isn't rampant capitalism, it's a stultifying nanny-statism which thrives on incompetence (http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-03-22td.html).

Kinda like Yeltsin defaulting on his Foreign Debts in the 1990's, huh?

Remind me again, what punitive actions were taken against newly-capitalist Russia for that?

Russia isn't capitalist, not by a long shot. As for what punishment Russia received, it should be obvious, because it's the same punishment that happens to most nations, corporations, or individuals who default on debt: their credit rating goes into the toilet, and they can't get loans at a decent rate. The US, on the other hand, can get loans at excellent rates, because it has excellent credit. And if you don't think that matters, well, I just don't know what to tell you.

Also, given that Venezuela produces OIL, that the economy of the WHOLE of our global civilisation depends upon OIL, and that we have now reached the era of Peak Oil Production, I don't really foresee a problem for Venezuela before their oil runs out.

Do you?

Well, yes. Their oil production is already dropping, and not because their reserves are running out (hint: dictators and aspiring dictators aren't big on long-term infrastructure development). Venezuela needs oil prices to continue to climb in order to keep up with the insane economic policies of Chavez, but guess what: they probably won't any time soon.

[Ziggurat]

As his regional support 'in America's back yard' appears to be growing, I expect a US invasion of his country just as soon as your Armed Forces are no longer tied up in Iraq.

Yeah, um... it's generally a bad idea to post drunk.

Nobody in the US cares about Venezuela enough to invade, and that's not about to change. Chavez is a far greater threat to his own country and his own allies than he is to us or our interests.

[DanishDynamite]

I suspect Chavez can do whatever he pleases. He can nationalize or refrain from nationalizing. It makes little difference. Venezuela has the 7th largest reserves of oil in the world. Some 90% by value of Venezuela's exports is oil. There will always be buyers of oil, and always be companies ready to assist in getting that oil, as long as it lasts.

I suspect the reign of Chavez will go well for as long as he lives, like other oil rich dictatorships which aren't planning much for the future.

[DanishDynamite]

1) Chavez != communism

That's one of the false and most hysterical equivalences I object to most in this thread. Bluntly, Chavez, whether you agree with him or not, whether he succeeds or not, whether you like him or not, is not pushing communism. Please, study a bit more political science or history or something.
In what sense does his constant nationalisation of everything not support the view that he is a communist?
2) nationalization of certain industries != communismNationalisation of anything at all is at least Socialist. Nationalisation of everything is Communist. How do we know ehere Chavez will stop?
Just to get that one potential one out of the way. Not understood.
3) I may always be wrong, but until shown otherwise, I refuse to believe that the anti-Chavez sentiment expressed in this thread has any basis at all whatsoever in concern for the poor of Venezuala, or for the poor overall at all. In fact, I get disgusted when people dress up their prejudices as somehow supposedly being for the betterment of the poor. Sheer hypocrisy of the worst kind
Me too. So kindly stop acting as if this was the case, for anyone.
4) Commercial deals can be re-written where the state does it or justice demands it. Get over it, stop whining. The question is how and why it's done, not if it's done at all. Get over yourselves; we are not slaves to previously-made unjust commercial deals. Too bad.
Yes, a country is slave to to deals previously made by that state. Get over it, stop whining.
5) One thing I would really like to know, if any one of the anti-Chavez lot would care to answer truthfully:
Why TF all this hysteria about Chavez? You people have me really baffled. I mean, you're all acting like as if he was invading Texas or something. Your outrage seems waaaaaaaaay over-proportional to the actual situation.
He is a dictator in the making, using socialism or communism as his way to get there.
6) Last thing: a lot of poor-mouthing going on here, and it looks only just like weird sour-grapes whining. Talking about Venezuala crumbling without any evidence to show it is? Predictions of despotism, collapse, doom and gloom without so far a shred of evidence?
No specific evidence above his nationalization craze is needed.
And laughably, predictions that Chavez will come begging cap in hand later for money. Sheeeeesh. Get a grip, folks, with oil prices the way they are and the direction they're headed in, Chavez has nowhere to go but up. He can't help but succeed. Purely accidental, but there you go. History is contingent. And all the poor-mouthing about him begging later looks far more like simple whining than anything else, and I am quite dispassionate about this all. Of course he will do well due to abundance of oil in Venezuela, as I've already explained earlier.

Anyone would do well. Even a braindead person, or the equivalent, Chavez.
I think that sums it all up nicely; maybe I will drop in later with stats about nationalized industries, since I find that an interesting area in and of itself. Maybe some of you could actually contribute some meat, rather than all this empty emo and outraged sloganizing.
Maybe sometime in the future you yourself could contribute something beyong inane socialist chatter. We look forward to this day.
But do tell me: WTF all the fuss? REALLY bloody weird, all ths fuss being made. You're all really over-reacting badly.
Because the naiv dude is doing naiv socialist stuff.
BTW, nationalization of the Suez Canal. Worked out very well for the Egyptians in the end, and the USA even ended up backing them in effect on it. History, people, learn from it.
BTW, nationalization of industries and nationalization of a particular unique feature of your country, are two different things.

[Gurdur]

....Nationalisation of anything at all is at least Socialist.
*yawn*
DD, which part of using mainstream terminology do you not wish to understand?
Nationalisation of everything is Communist.
*yawn again*
Not understood.
I am so unsurprised.
Yes, a country is slave to to deals previously made by that state. Get over it, stop whining.
*snicker*
Better practice the following:
1) your re-reading --- I'm not the one who is whining
2) your knowledge of history and economics, which seems sadly deficient. No, a country is not a slave to deals previously made. History has shown that time and time again. See below.
3) your grip on reality. Reality does not agree with your ideology. Come back when you can handle facts.
He is a dictator in the making
*yawn*
You left out his eating of babies and raping of nuns. Now tell us, why your hysteria?
Anyone would do well. Even a braindead person, or the equivalent, Chavez.
My point exactly. :)
Despite all the predictions of doom, Chavez and Venezuala will most likely succeed. Get over it.
BTW, nationalization of industries and nationalization of a particular unique feature of your country, are two different things.
Special pleading. Invalid. Try again. Hey, didn't you claim that a country was always slave to deals previously made? And yet Nasser and Egypt proved you badly wrong? Better practice your grip on reality some more -- sadly lacking, there.

Cheers, DD. Come back when you can manage something better than wishful thinking and inane name-calling.

[Gurdur]

Nobody in the US cares about Venezuela enough to invade, and that's not about to change. Chavez is a far greater threat to his own country and his own allies than he is to us or our interests.
Quite apart from the USA caring enough to meddle in the politics of Venezuala (remember the failed coup and its backers, hmmm?), if your statement of non-caring is truthful, then why the hysteria in this thread?

I actually am quite truthfully baffled you all get so excited and outraged over Chavez. It is for me quite astonishing. Any explanation to offer me?

[Ziggurat]

why the hysteria in this thread?

What hysteria? Or is that just what you call it when someone disagrees with you?

[BPSCG]

No, a country is not a slave to deals previously made. It is certainly a slave to the consequences of reneging on promises. Try getting someone to take your country's bonds (i.e., your promise to pay borrowed money back with interest) when you've unilaterally voided a contract negotiated by your predecessor just because you didn't like the terms. They're going to demand a lot of interest from you your taxpayers, a lot more than they'll demand from countries that don't welsh on their agreements. But that's okay, 'cause you done stuck it to The Man!

[BPSCG]

double post

[BPSCG]

triple post (I'm on a roll!)

[DanishDynamite]

Gurdur, my confused Norwegian brother. Please try to reply fully to the questions I ask of your Communist self. You seem to have forgotten a few of the questions, but I guess that can happen for anyone. So, being the nice guy I am, I'll repeat them:

1) In what sense does his constant nationalisation of everything not support the view that he is a communist?

2) Nationalisation of anything at all is at least Socialist. Nationalisation of everything is Communist. How do we know where Chavez will stop?
*yawn*
DD, which part of using mainstream terminology do you not wish to understand?
What part of my question didn't you understand?
*yawn again*
See above.
I am so unsurprised.
Kindly answer the question. Thanks.
*snicker*
Better practice the following:
1) your re-reading --- I'm not the one who is whining
2) your knowledge of history and economics, which seems sadly deficient. No, a country is not a slave to deals previously made. History has shown that time and time again. See below.
3) your grip on reality. Reality does not agree with your ideology. Come back when you can handle facts.
1) I've re-read. My point stands.
2)Of course it is. Kindly provide examples where, barring special circumstances, this is not the case.
3) Reality agrees very well with current reality.
So, kindly answer my question in the current reality.'
*yawn*
You left out his eating of babies and raping of nuns. Now tell us, why your hysteria?
No hysteria here.
My point exactly. :)
Despite all the predictions of doom, Chavez and Venezuala will most likely succeed. Get over it.
I know they will succeed. Just as Saudi Arabia and North Korea will succeed. For a while. But I don't want them to succeed for the brief period that they will. For the reasons I gave previously.
Special pleading. Invalid. Try again. Hey, didn't you claim that a country was always slave to deals previously made? And yet Nasser and Egypt proved you badly wrong? Better practice your grip on reality some more -- sadly lacking, there.
My dear communist, a deal which makes or breaks a nation, is unusual.
Cheers, DD. Come back when you can manage something better than wishful thinking and inane name-calling.
Cheers, Gurdur. Come back when you have some actual answers, and perhaps even some evidence. Just waving the red flag doesn't do it. :)

[Gurdur]

Gurdur, my confused Norwegian brother.
I'm not Norwegian. You appear to be very confused yet again. Nor am I your brother.
your Communist self.
I am not a communist.
Since that has been stated more than once, obviously you're either not reading, or you're intentionally saying something which isn't true. Neither habit is recommendable, nor does it increase my respect for you. But the Norwegian part was very funny.
What part of my question didn't you understand?
It's not difficult to understand you at all. Trust me on this. :) I doubt anyone at all would have trouble understanding you. I believe the problem may well be in the other direction, though.
;)
Cheers, Gurdur. Come back
Try not to be silly. But I did really enjoy your thinking that I am a Norwegian communist. It was very funny and also funnily weird.

Skol!

[DanishDynamite]

I'm not Norwegian. You appear to be very confused yet again.

I am not a communist.
Since that has been stated more than once, obviously you're either not reading, or you're intentionally saying something which isn't true. Neither habit is recommendable, nor does it increase my respect for you.

It's not difficult to understand you at all. Trust me on this. :) I doubt anyone would have trouble understanding you. I believe the problem may well be in the other direction, though.
;)

Try not to be silly. But I did really enjoy your thinking that I am a Norwegian communist. It was very funny and also funnily weird.

Skol!
Gurdur, you are a riot! :)

I can only surmise that you must be shaneks's brother as you have the same inability to answer every point raised.Are you in fact an American, Gurdur?

In case you expect to be taken seriously, kindly reply to every point in my previous post.

[Mycroft]

I actually am quite truthfully baffled you all get so excited and outraged over Chavez. It is for me quite astonishing. Any explanation to offer me?

I'm not very excited about Venezuela specifically, but in general I think it’s a bad thing when governments begin to seize private property. I don’t think the principle is changed at all if the private property in question is a family farm or the holdings of an international corporation.

What about you? You seem eager and willing to sling invectives and insults at anyone who disagrees with you on this issue, why do you take it so personally?

[Wolfman]

Aren't banks in China nationalised?

Yes. But as China becomes more and more capitalist, its state banks are losing market share to informal banks and lending arrangements (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_46/b3908048.htm). They still have a long way to go, but they're headed in the right direction - the opposite direction from Venezuela. Chavez would be well-advised to have a look at how China's experiment with socialism went, and how the country is prospering now, compared with thirty years ago.

China-schmina. Look at any country that attempted a centrally-planned economy. They all end in ruin. Unfortunately it's the populace that is ruined, not the "planners".
Would like to make a few comments in regards to China's economy and banking policies:

* During the Asian financial crisis, China was pretty much the only country whose economy was NOT crushed. This was because financial speculation (and fear) destroyed the value of other Asian currencies; but since the Chinese gov't didn't allow trade in Chinese currency, and because of their centralized control over the value of their currency, they avoided pretty much the whole mess. A point that a lot of people in this argument seem to miss is that currencies are generally traded the same as stocks in the international market; and speculation, fear, etc. can set off rapid sell-offs of currencies which result in massive devaluation of that currency, and terrible damage to that country's economy. Only a well-established and very strong economy is able to ride out such difficulties; China is not yet at that point.

* China is moving towards privatization of banks. Two Chinese banks have gone through IPO, offering shares to the general public, and changing to a more privatized form of management. This process is set to continue and strengthen in future.

* And a comment on the title of this article -- it is a curiously American thing to equate "government control" with "Communism". They seem to be entirely ignorant of the fact that repression, abuse, state control of enterprise, etc., can happen under many different forms of government. But calling it "Communist" serves two convenient advantages -- one, you don't have to actually think about or understand the situation; and two, you guarantee an automatic "fear" response in others which, hopefully, will prevent them from examining the issue any deeper than that.

Is this a smart move? Will the long-term results for Venezuela be positive or negative? I don't know. Anyone who claims they CAN accurately predict the results, I'd suggest you write your predictions on a piece of paper, with a specific deadline, and submit it to Randi to get his million dollars.

But is it understandable? Sure it is. If the U.S. had tons of foreign companies controlling all of America's natural resources, and making decisions about how those resources would be used without regard for the wishes of the U.S. gov't, or the American general public, I can guarantee that there'd be a huge uproar (as, in fact, you DO get every time people hear about a Chinese or other foreign country investing in key American industries). Cries about "national sovereignity", etc.

Well, people, the same thing is happening in Venezuela. Surprise, surprise, they do NOT believe that foreign companies have the best interests of the Venezuelan people at heart (a belief more than adequately backed up with facts). And this is the result.

[Mycroft]

Gurdur, knock off the condescending Al Gore impressions. FWIW, I'd never heard the term either, and had to look up its very short entry in wikipedia. I guess we're all uneducated boobs who should be sitting at your feet absorbing your precious pearls. To quote you, "puh-leeze."

Okay, so neoliberalism That's a formula that's worked very well for a number of countries. I see Noam Chomsky disapproves of it, which isn't surprising. Now what's your problem with it?

This seems to be the definition he's using:

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html

In looking through Google and in seeing how the word is used, it seems to be used primarily by “progressive” activists in deriding free-market capitalism and globalization.

[gtc]

3) I may always be wrong, but until shown otherwise, I refuse to believe that the anti-Chavez sentiment expressed in this thread has any basis at all whatsoever in concern for the poor of Venezuala, or for the poor overall at all.

This says a lot more about you than it does about the people who have posted in this thread.

[Gurdur]

This says a lot more about you than it does about the people who have posted in this thread.
Dubious, very dubious.

But you can always try backing up your empty assertion with an actual argument, or something. I so love pseudo-moralist empty assertions. I love even more calling people out on them.

[WildCat]

I don't know. Anyone who claims they CAN accurately predict the results, I'd suggest you write your predictions on a piece of paper, with a specific deadline, and submit it to Randi to get his million dollars.
To predict that Chavez's policies will have a devastating effect on the economy of Venezuela will not qualify for the $1 million, for the same reason that predicting the sun will rise in the east tomorrow will also not qualify.

Wolfman, foreign companies do not own all of Venezuela's natural resources, nor is Chavez seizing only foreign-owned property. And plenty of foreign companies own timber, steel, land and other resources in the US and few Americans give a damn.

Chavez is systematically destroying all of Venezuela's economic infrastructure, soon the only money-making product they have will be oil. And frankly, having only one money-making industry will not work out any better for them as far as economic prosperity goes as it has for Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, or other oil kleptocracies throughout the world.

[BPSCG]

1) Chavez != communism

That's one of the false and most hysterical equivalences I object to most in this thread. Bluntly, Chavez, whether you agree with him or not, whether he succeeds or not, whether you like him or not, is not pushing communism.Really? Let's hear from the man himself (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/hugo_chavez/):

I have said it already, I am convinced that the way to build a new and better world is not capitalism. Capitalism leads us straight to hell.

The left is back, and it's the only path we have to get out of the spot to which the right has sunken us, ... Socialism builds and capitalism destroys.

[The planet] is being destroyed under our own noses by the capitalist model, the destructive engine of development, ... every day there is more hunger, more misery thanks to the neo-liberal, capitalist model.

"There, you see?" the Chavez apologists are saying. "He's a socialist, not a communist." The problem is, "socialism" is often a fig-leaf for "communism"; even Chavez's best buddy Castro calls Cuba a socialist country. It's not surprising they avoid the word "communism" like it's a sexually-transmitted disease. Many truly socialist countries have admirable records of providing for their citizenry; not one communist country ever did. Tell people they're going to have a socialist country, and they think Sweden. Tell them communist and they think Stalin and Mao.

But since when does socialism entail confiscation of private property? Ask people to name a socialist country and most of them will put Sweden at the top of the list. But has Sweden nationalized Volvo and Pergo? Private industry is alive and well in Sweden; it's heavily taxed to support the cradle-to-grave welfare system the Swedes prefer, but it's still private industry. That is socialism.

When the government decides to provide the welfare state by seizing all the means of production - and then blandly claims it is now owned by "the people" - that's communism. That's where Chavez is headed. He isn't there yet. But don't try to sell the notion that that isn't his intent. You can put lipstick, a tutu, and an Easter bonnet on a pig, but it's still a pig.

2) nationalization of certain industries != communism

Just to get that one potential one out of the way.What, then, do you call the nationalization of one major industry after another, with no evidence of intent to stop, coupled with explicitly stated hatred of capitalism and openly-expressed admiration of the world's most notable communist leader?

[Wolfman]

Wolfman, foreign companies do not own all of Venezuela's natural resources, nor is Chavez seizing only foreign-owned property.
Nope...only the majority of it.

Listen, I'm not saying that what Chavez is doing is RIGHT. I am saying it is UNDERSTANDABLE. There's a world of difference between the two.
And frankly, having only one money-making industry will not work out any better for them as far as economic prosperity goes as it has for Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, or other oil kleptocracies throughout the world.
Interesting the range of choices that YOU give, and attempt to depict as representative of all possible examples.

I'd suggest that you try checking out Dubai some time. Not that I'm saying that Venezuela will (or could) follow the same path; but it more than adequately demonstrates that your argument in this regard has significant holes in it.

What I find really interesting in this whole thing is the psychology and the politics of it. The U.S. gov't spouts off about how it is the "defender of democracy"...until a leader is democratically elected whom they happen to not like. Chavez is the democratically elected leader of his country; and from the beginning, he had policies that were intended to decrease dependence on and connections with the U.S. Now, it SHOULD BE the right of any country to choose with which countries they want to trade or associate...but in this case, the U.S. had too many personal interests, and too much to lose, from Chaves' policies.

They therefore began actively plotting against him. Yes...the U.S. gov't began an intentional policy of interfering in the leadership of another country, simply because they didn't like that leadership's decisions. Whether or not these policies were beneficial to the Venezuelan PEOPLE had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this; the U.S. gov't would very happily support a brutal dictatorship as long at that dictatorship served their purposes.

Did the U.S. actually have plans to try to assassinate Chavez, as claimed? I don't know. But what IS certain is that the U.S. gov't channeled significant funds into the hands of ANY Chavez opponents, regardless of their political beliefs, in order to try to get Chavez out of power.

Now, consider the reaction if it is discovered that the Chinese government is contributing money to American leaders that it considers sympathetic to China...what is the reaction? Screams of outrage from Americans, that the Chinese gov't has no right to interfere in or try to influence American elections.

Same thing happened in Venezuela. Chavez feels MORE threatened, and certainly not well disposed towards the U.S.; and a significant number of Venezuelan people share his mistrust and dislike of these American policies.

When someone feels threatened, they get defensive. Thus, Chavez' ongoing efforts to decrease foreign control and influence in his country (and foreign oil companies DID yield significant economic and political power).

The thing that gets me is that, when the Venezuelan people suffered under leaders far more abusive and despotic than Chavez, nobody in the U.S. gave a damn...so long as they didn't threaten American interests. But once AMERICAN interests are threatened, then suddenly the banner of "human rights" is waved about wildly as a justification for policies that really have nothing to do with the freedom, prosperity, or comfort of the Venezuelan people, and everything to do with the prosperity of American companies, and the political interests of the American gov't.

So yeah...it is quite possible that Chavez' policies will hurt Venezuela. On the other hand, if he chooses some strong leaders to oversee these industries, they could end up doing considerably better than they are now.

While I understand your prediction, I've been hearing people make similar predictions about China for the last 14 years I've been here. Predictions of doom and gloom, of inevitable disaster, etc. And these people have been proven wrong over and over and over again.

So I hope you'll forgive me if, while understanding the reasons for your argument, and even agreeing with it in part, I will personally wait to see REALITY, as opposed to the rather biased predictions of one individual.

[WildCat]

They therefore began actively plotting against him. Yes...the U.S. gov't began an intentional policy of interfering in the leadership of another country, simply because they didn't like that leadership's decisions. Whether or not these policies were beneficial to the Venezuelan PEOPLE had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this; the U.S. gov't would very happily support a brutal dictatorship as long at that dictatorship served their purposes.

Did the U.S. actually have plans to try to assassinate Chavez, as claimed? I don't know.
In case you don't know, Pat Robertson is an insane preacher who is not in the US government and does not set US policy.

But what IS certain is that the U.S. gov't channeled significant funds into the hands of ANY Chavez opponents, regardless of their political beliefs, in order to try to get Chavez out of power.
Evidence?

Now, consider the reaction if it is discovered that the Chinese government is contributing money to American leaders that it considers sympathetic to China...what is the reaction? Screams of outrage from Americans, that the Chinese gov't has no right to interfere in or try to influence American elections.
Already happened. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098.htm) Guess the outrage was so high you remain unaware of it...

Same thing happened in Venezuela. Chavez feels MORE threatened, and certainly not well disposed towards the U.S.; and a significant number of Venezuelan people share his mistrust and dislike of these American policies.
Nope, like every other tin-pot dictator Chavez needs a bogeyman. Real or (in this case) manufactured.

[Wolfman]

In case you don't know, Pat Robertson is an insane preacher who is not in the US government and does not set US policy.
Ummmm...wasn't referring to Pat Robertson at all. Check out this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093001317.html), which has nothing to do with Roberson's lunacy. Like I said, I don't know how much credence to give to such claims, and am not personally stating I believe the U.S. gov't actually plotted to do this.
Evidence?
Are you being deliberately dense? Or are you just incredibly naive? The U.S. gov't routinely interferes in and attempts to influence elections all over the world. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it is a fact well documented by gov't and CIA files. If you want an example, here's one of the more glaring ones (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wovene244053424nov24,0,4856696.story).
Already happened. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/cf021098.htm) Guess the outrage was so high you remain unaware of it...
Ummmm...perhaps you didn't quite grasp the purpose of my post...I chose that example BECAUSE I knew that it has already happened, and BECAUSE it perfectly demonstrates that American response to foreign interference in its elections is little different to that of Venezuelan response to foreign interference in their elections.
Nope, like every other tin-pot dictator Chavez needs a bogeyman. Real or (in this case) manufactured.
Again, when we are talking about MANUFACTURING bogeymen, Bush & Co. lead the pack, and are way, way ahead of Chavez.

Funny how ya' skipped over that whole "Dubai" thing, too...seems that when your claims are demonstrated to be entirely false, you prefer to avoid that altogether, and just put together new ones. Perhaps if you throw ENOUGH of them out there, some of them will manage to stick.

[Gurdur]

...Evidence?
Ah ha ha HA!
Come on, WildCat, almost all posts by the Anti-Chavez Hysterical Brigade have been totally evidence-free here, just a bunch of assertions, some of which contradict each other.

You yourself at least asked one intelligent question, about the success of nationalization of oil industries. I will point out though, that since you are one of those making wild assertions about Chavez and the future, it's up to you to back it up with evidence, and not to simply preach.

But never mind; :) , here's the first part of my answer to your question.

Kuwait. Nationalized the oil industry since 1975. Doing very well too. I will be back with other examples.
:)
Nope, like every other tin-pot dictator Chavez needs a bogeyman. Real or (in this case) manufactured.
Like George Bush, you mean? Bush's pechant for bogeymen? Iraq2? WMD's? Thank-you for the funny post, but I must point out to you that both Chavez and Bush were actually elected. Try again? Neither is a dictator, and you are only indulging in useless name-calling, which brings me back to my own question, which neither you nor anyone else has answered as yet:
Why all this hysteria and over-reaction about Chavez?

Of course, you or others could try telling me again you don't actually care, but ya know, after all this, I simply wouldn't believe it.

[Wolfman]

Since I'm sure that Wild Cat will point out that the article I cited (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wovene244053424nov24,0,4856696.story) says that the U.S. gov't did not actively SUPPORT the failed coup against Chavez, it fails to make my point. However, not only does it demonstrate that the U.S. was fully aware of the plans for the coup, and did nothing to warn Chavez or his government, but that it DID have implicit U.S. approval. To whit:
The Bush administration and Chávez, a fiery former paratrooper, have clashed repeatedly, with Chávez accusing the United States of backing the coup against him and U.S. officials denouncing his leadership as authoritarian. The United States was one of the few nations to embrace the coup initially, though it later reversed its position.
Please note my emphasis here. The U.S. gov't, the "defender of democracy", ACCEPTED a "government" that had launched a military coup against a democratically elected government. By far the rest of the Western world -- Canada, England, Australia, etc. -- condemned it. The U.S. welcomed it. Only when it became obvious that it was not going to last did the U.S. gov't change its position and (rather too late) raise rather pointless protests to the coup.

[Gurdur]

Nationalization:

1969 Nationalization of 14 Indian banks. India doing well today. :)

Libya, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, all have at times nationalized their oil industries. Kuwait already mentioned in previous post.

Renault, nationalized in 1944, did well while nationalized.

South Korea, all rail nationalized in 1946.

Partial nationalization of Air New Zealand in 2003.

Rumesa in Spain, accounting for 2 % of total GNP of Spain then (banks, hotels etc.), nationalized in 1983 without compensation. Spain doing very well. :)

Bolivia, negotiating nationalization of natural gas industry, beginning 2006.

Just a few examples.

The point is very clear; sometimes nationalization works very well indeed. And for all the Righteous posturing and screaming by some here, nationalization (including without compensation) is often legal and successful, see the Spanish example.

[Gurdur]

ooooooer, I forgot to mention:

by the "logic" of DanishDynamite's weird little contributions here, that makes Spain, South Korea and Kuwait communist. Now I am really laughing. Still, never mind, if DD gets a list of the world's countries and works through it, he might even be able to get my nationality right one day. Small consolation, and of course, that's a long-term goal for him, but ya know, even a stopped watch, yada yada.
:D

[BPSCG]

Renault, nationalized in 1944, did well while nationalized.Yes, that's why Renault is the best-selling foreign car in the United States today.

For the record, my first car was a 1969 Renault 10. There have been disputes whether Yugo or Hyundai manufactured the first biodegradable car; both first exported vehicles to the US in the mid-1980's, and both were pitiful excuses for automotive transportation.

Nevertheless, if my experience was any guide, Renault had both Yugo and Hyundai beat in the concept of the biodegradable car by at least 15 years.

There's an old joke about something representing the best of English cooking, German civility, and French engineering. The Renault 10 was a classic example of the last.

[Gurdur]

BPSCG, you're not tackling the point. Even Ford made big profits at the time it was manufacturing the Pinto. Remember the Ford Pinto?

Any old how, looks like certain issues have been well and truly settled by the facts. The facts show:
Nationalization != Communism.

See all examples given in previous posts.
.
Nationalization even totally without compensation != communism.

See the given example of Spain, 1983, Remusa.
.
Nationalization often both quite legal and quite ethical.

See all given examples.
.
Nationalization often very successful.

See all examples; tons more to give historically, like the nationalization of the East India Company, after all.
.
Nationalization of oil industries outside the western world sometimes very successful. Nationalization of banking industries, ditto.

See examples given of Kuwait, India etc.
Which leads us back to the great unanswered question:
why the sheer hysteria and rampant empty name-calling here about Chavez? Just why are y'all getting your panties so tightly in wads about him?

[BPSCG]

I so love pseudo-moralist empty assertions posing as a sneering, arrogant, smug intellectual; it's a wonderful substitute for actual substance.Fixed it for you.

[Gurdur]

Fixed it for you.
*shrug*
Up till now, BPSCG, I had a certain amount of respect for you. But now, despite my doing my bit of actually tackling issues, giving facts and so on, in a thread you've started, you've refused to actually tackle the issues, and all you are doing now is extremely childish name-calling.

So you have no actual answer to give, and all you can do is be stupidly rude. It's risible and extremely ineffective. No worries, I've seen far better creative efforts by others at that, so you don't even win any points for that, and you only lose respect. Your loss, not mine. Cheers, mate!

[BPSCG]

BPSCG, you're not tackling the point. Even Ford made big profits at the time it was manufacturing the Pinto. Remember the Ford Pinto?Speaking of not tackling the point; you answer what amounts to a humorous aside post from me while ignoring the earlier one that argues that Chavez is indeed leading Venezuela to communism.

Any old how, looks like certain issues have been well and truly settled by the facts. And then go on to declare victory:

The facts show:

Nationalization != Communism.

See all examples given in previous posts.Nationalization of certain industries (your phrasing) does not necessarily = communism. But nationalization of everything by someone who openly professes admiration of communism and hatred of capitalism does. I asked you earlier: If it isn't communism, what, then, do you call the nationalization of one major industry after another, with no evidence of intent to stop, coupled with explicitly stated hatred of capitalism and openly-expressed admiration of the world's most notable communist leader? You chose to ignore that question and talk about Ford Pintos.
Nationalization even totally without compensation != communism.

That's correct; the proper term is theft.

Which leads us back to the great unanswered question:
why the sheer hysteria and rampant empty name-calling here about Chavez? Just why are y'all getting your panties so tightly in wads about him?For starts, calling Chavez a communist is not name-calling; it is identifying his economics.

Ultimately, I don't think it will make a big difference to the rest of the world when Chavez finally turns Venezuela communist. He will still have to sell his oil at market prices, so he will have no effect whatsoever on the world's supply or demand. He will very likely impoverish his own country, however. Communism has a sterling record in that regard - communism has never made a country rich. The best that can be said is that a few communist countries are not any worse off than they were before they became communist. He may or may not be voted out of office, or overthrown, but that's really of no particular concern to me. The most worrisome thing about him is his oft-expressed desire to export his revolution to the rest of South America. I suspect Chavez's neighbors will have their own opinions about the desireability of having Chavez's revolution imported into their countries; he might want to have a talk with his buddy Fidel about what went wrong for Che in Bolivia.

[Gurdur]

Speaking of not tackling the point;
Bollocks, dude, you decided to get all childish. You will be treated accordingly. Your problem, not mine.
And then go on to declare victory:
Not honest. I've simply refuted all your points and assertions made by others by using actual facts, and then I noted you descended into childish name-calling instead of any real reply. Get upset when you lose an argument, do you?
Your problem again, not mine.

That's correct; the proper term is theft. For starts, calling Chavez a communist is not name-calling
Bollocks again. Already done to death. Dance for me, dude; I love to see the Righteous Outrage!
Ultimately, I don't think it will make a big difference to the rest of the world
So why are your panties in such a tight wad about him? Answer already, like, dude, or don't answer; either way I'm hardly likely you to take you seriously now, am I? Never mind, you have only yourself to blame for that.

Hey, dude, maybe you can jump up and down in righteous outrage all over again, and call some more names. You haven't done any better so far, so why not stick with what you know best? Dance for me, dude! Show us that Righteous Huff Stuff!
:)

[BPSCG]

I've simply refuted all your points and assertions made by others by using actual facts,

(...snip...)

Already done to death.I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where you answered a question I twice asked you.

So I'll ask it again: What do you call the nationalization of one major industry after another, with no evidence of intent to stop, coupled with explicitly stated hatred of capitalism and openly-expressed admiration of the world's most notable communist leader? If it isn't communism, what is it?

Since you claim you've already answered that question, you can simply link to that post, or you can copy-and-paste your answer. Oh, and "nationalization != communism" is not an answer to that question, so please don't try to fob it off as one. You'll have to do better. Tell us all what it is, not what it isn't.

Dude.

[DanishDynamite]

Nationalization:

1969 Nationalization of 14 Indian banks. India doing well today. :)

Libya, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, all have at times nationalized their oil industries. Kuwait already mentioned in previous post.

Renault, nationalized in 1944, did well while nationalized.

South Korea, all rail nationalized in 1946.

Partial nationalization of Air New Zealand in 2003.

Rumesa in Spain, accounting for 2 % of total GNP of Spain then (banks, hotels etc.), nationalized in 1983 without compensation. Spain doing very well. :)

Bolivia, negotiating nationalization of natural gas industry, beginning 2006.

Just a few examples.

The point is very clear; sometimes nationalization works very well indeed. And for all the Righteous posturing and screaming by some here, nationalization (including without compensation) is often legal and successful, see the Spanish example.
My dear Gurdur, nationalized companies do well as long as the state supports them. :)

The only exceptions to this are nationalized industries which provide a natural resource which is scarce and in high demand. These will do well, nationalized or not.

This is Economics 101!

Now, kindly answer the questions I posed to you earlier.

[WildCat]

Nationalization:

1969 Nationalization of 14 Indian banks. India doing well today. :)
India has more people living in burlap shacks next to open sewers than there are people in the US.

Libya, Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, all have at times nationalized their oil industries. Kuwait already mentioned in previous post.
Libya, SA, and Nigeria have extremely corrupt governments. A few do well, most of the population lives in stifling poverty you couldn't even imagine. Mexico doing so well their #1 export is people.

Renault, nationalized in 1944, did well while nationalized.
You have to be kidding!

South Korea, all rail nationalized in 1946.
While it was a bunker state.

Partial nationalization of Air New Zealand in 2003.
Not really, the NZ government basically bought 80% of it for $NZ885 million.

Rumesa in Spain, accounting for 2 % of total GNP of Spain then (banks, hotels etc.), nationalized in 1983 without compensation. Spain doing very well. :)
Spain has the second lowest per-capita income in western Europe, behind only Portugal. And it's quite a jump up to the next country.

Bolivia, negotiating nationalization of natural gas industry, beginning 2006.
I'm sure that will work very well. :rolleyes:

The point is very clear; sometimes nationalization works very well indeed.
Then why did you list the basket case examples above? Please list the times it "worked very well".

[Molinaro]

I just read this thread from start to finish. I have to side with those critical of Chavez with respect to a lack of answers from the supporters of his policies, in this thread.
Gurdur, declaring a question to be answered is not the same as actualy answering the question. Perhaps it's time for you to read the thread?

[Beerina]

:newlol

I love you - your posts make it seem as though you are actually incapable of rational thought.

Gurdur makes a point along the lines of supporting Venezuleans' right to do what they want with their own national resources - such as nationalising Venezuelan companies in order to return all their profits to Venezuelans, instead of letting foreign shareholders get all the benefit of Venezuela's national resources.

You understand that this has been done time and time again, and leads to nothing but increased poverty for the locals, right?

In other words, it is just standard, fraudulent lying by politicians in exchange for power.

Sure, there are a handful of tiny oil countries that "spread it around" enough, but Venezuela is hardly small enough for that. And, quite frankly, I'd like to see a study that shows the average in these tiny oil dictatorships are even remotely near the average for free, Western countries. In other words, they still suck as an economic "system".

[Earthborn]

... the earlier one that argues that Chavez is indeed leading Venezuela to communism.Unless you wish to argue that 'Chavez is indeed leading Venezuela to a stateless, classless utopia', there is no point in calling him a communist.

If it isn't communism, what, then, do you call the nationalization of one major industry after another, with no evidence of intent to stop, coupled with explicitly stated hatred of capitalism"State Corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism)"

[Ziggurat]

Unless you wish to argue that 'Chavez is indeed leading Venezuela to a stateless, classless utopia', there is no point in calling him a communist.

By that standard nobody was a communist - least of all Stalin and Mao. If you want to argue that some other label (like the one you suggested) is more appropriate, fine, but the standard you give here for communism is absurd and unworkable. Whether or not you intended it this way, it amounts to nothing more than the claim that communism isn't a failure because nobody's tried "true" communism.

[Mycroft]

Unless you wish to argue that 'Chavez is indeed leading Venezuela to a stateless, classless utopia', there is no point in calling him a communist.


No true communist fallacy?

[rikzilla]

No true communist fallacy?

Ah, that takes me down memory lane! I had many words with one Victor Danilchenko who taught me that no true supporter of Marxism will ever admit that Communism was ever attained at any time by any nation on the planet. Ever.

The USSR? They were merely working towards Communism. Ditto Cuba, NK, China, etc...etc...etc...

It is in this way that face may be saved and Herr Marx may someday have his ideas rehab'd and resurrected. Inshallah.

No matter what Chavez may next do one thing is quite certain; he'll never attain Communism. Therefore, amongst the intellectual class that loves the ideas of Marx, he shall never be able to sully the utopian ideal. It's a win-win bit of dishonest rhetoric. The left can cheer on Chavez's nationalism of oil, media, banking, etc...and when the wheels fall off and the economy tanks and poverty escalates they can distance themselves ideologically...and/or perhaps simply blame Bush.

Since Communism is often described as; A system where workers control the means of production; I suppose mankind will forever remain innocent of Communism.

-z

[shuize]

Ah, that takes me down memory lane! I had many words with one Victor Danilchenko who taught me that no true supporter of Marxism will ever admit that Communism was ever attained at any time by any nation on the planet. Ever.

The USSR? They were merely working towards Communism. Ditto Cuba, NK, China, etc...etc...etc...

It is in this way that face may be saved and Herr Marx may someday have his ideas rehab'd and resurrected. Inshallah.

No matter what Chavez may next do one thing is quite certain; he'll never attain Communism. Therefore, amongst the intellectual class that loves the ideas of Marx, he shall never be able to sully the utopian ideal. It's a win-win bit of dishonest rhetoric. The left can cheer on Chavez's nationalism of oil, media, banking, etc...and when the wheels fall off and the economy tanks and poverty escalates they can distance themselves ideologically...and/or perhaps simply blame Bush.

Since Communism is often described as; A system where workers control the means of production; I suppose mankind will forever remain innocent of Communism.

-z

Which in turn reminds me of conversations I've had with rather successful academics who claim to be Communists:

Me: "If you really believe in equal distribution of wealth as you claim, why don't you donate your house, car, boat, etc. to charity?"

Them: "Oh, I'll be happy to give up my house to aid the poor when the time comes."

[Earthborn]

By that standard nobody was a communist - least of all Stalin and Mao.By that standard there are plenty of communists, just not Stalin and Mao.

Whether or not you intended it this way, it amounts to nothing more than the claim that communism isn't a failure because nobody's tried "true" communism.Well, it isn't a failure. It isn't a success either. It is a largely undefined hypothetical construct. Golliboggelotz also isn't a failure.

No true communist fallacy?There are plenty of 'true communists', but they tend to strive for a stateless classless utopia. Chavez does not appear to strive for such a thing, and looks to me more like an old fashioned democratic socialist.

Ah, that takes me down memory lane! I had many words with one Victor Danilchenko who taught me that no true supporter of Marxism will ever admit that Communism was ever attained at any time by any nation on the planet. Ever.No true supporter of human colonisation of the solar system will ever admit (if they are honest) that a permanent base on the moon was ever attained at any time, by any nation on the planet. That does not in itself invalidate their dream of doing so; a better argument would be that it would be an incredible waste of resources for no good reason.

If you want to criticise a political movement, you'll need to come up with better arguments than that its ultimate goal has never been achieved.

Since Communism is often described as; A system where workers control the means of production;No, that's what Marx called "socialism".

I suggest you inform yourself a little better about a political philosophy before you start criticising it. It should be simple enough, with Wikipedia having pretty good articles on them all. Even without making up your own strawman versions of communism and Marxism (or any other political philosophy), there will be more then enough reasons to criticise them, trust me on that.

[DanishDynamite]

By that standard there are plenty of communists, just not Stalin and Mao.
Care to name them?
Well, it isn't a failure. It isn't a success either. It is a largely undefined hypothetical construct. Golliboggelotz also isn't a failure.No. It is a failure. In all the places it has been tried, it is a failure. Are you saying that all those who tried, including Fidel Castro, simply didn't understand it? Are you thus saying that all those who tried it were intellectual midgets? If not, what are you saying?
There are plenty of 'true communists', but they tend to strive for a stateless classless utopia. Chavez does not appear to strive for such a thing, and looks to me more like an old fashioned democratic socialist.What would Chavez need to do, beyong nationalizing everything in sight, in order for him to become a "true" communist?
No true supporter of human colonisation of the solar system will ever admit (if they are honest) that a permanent base on the moon was ever attained at any time, by any nation on the planet. That does not in itself invalidate their dream of doing so; a better argument would be that it would be an incredible waste of resources for no good reason.
Prove it.
If you want to criticise a political movement, you'll need to come up with better arguments than that its ultimate goal has never been achieved.
Why?
No, that's what Marx called "socialism".

I suggest you inform yourself a little better about a political philosophy before you start criticising it. It should be simple enough, with Wikipedia having pretty good articles on them all. Even without making up your own strawman versions of communism and Marxism (or any other political philosophy), there will be more then enough reasons to criticise them, trust me on that.
Are you a communist?

[Earthborn]

Are you a communist?No. I consider the concept of a stateless egalitarian classless society nothing more than a pipedream. I don't think it will ever happen.

Care to name them?I guess one could argue that Marx was one, and Engels... do I need to name them all?

In all the places it has been tried, it is a failure.Where did anyone ever try a stateless classless society? I must have missed it. I can image how it must have been a failure, just not how you get such a thing started in the first place.

Are you saying that all those who tried, including Fidel Castro, simply didn't understand it?I think Fidel Castro probably understands it very well and he probably knows that he has very little to gain from a stateless classless society.

What would Chavez need to do, beyong nationalizing everything in sight, in order for him to become a "true" communist?First of all, he would need to identify himself as a communist. And he would need to give up all state power and give it to the proletariat.

Prove it.Prove what? That there is no permanent moonbase? That the non-existence of a moonbase does not in itself disprove the validity of wanting to build one? Or that such a thing would be an enormous waste of resources (which is not my opinion; my opinion is merely that claiming that it would be an enormous waste is a better argument against a moonbase than pointing out that it doesn't exist.)

Why?Because no political movement in existence has ever attained its ultimate goal.

[Ziggurat]

By that standard there are plenty of communists, just not Stalin and Mao.

Then you're using a definition that's different from what most other people, including Stalin and Mao themselves, are using. And if you use a definition that precludes calling people communist when most other people consider then communist, then your objection to calling Chavez a communist is irrelevant, because we're not going to adopt your definition.

Well, it isn't a failure. It isn't a success either. It is a largely undefined hypothetical construct. Golliboggelotz also isn't a failure.

When everyone who has claimed to try it has produced only misery and failure, it becomes a rather irrelevant point whether or not they were really tried it "the right way".

There are plenty of 'true communists', but they tend to strive for a stateless classless utopia.

In other words, you can only be a true communist as long as you never have a chance to try to implement communism. Weak, Earthborn. Really weak.

Chavez does not appear to strive for such a thing, and looks to me more like an old fashioned democratic socialist.

No, looks alot more like an aspiring Castro. And most of the rest of us consider him a commie. Your objection that Castro is not a commie is irrelevant to me.

If you want to criticise a political movement, you'll need to come up with better arguments than that its ultimate goal has never been achieved.

Communism is a damned sight worse than never having achieved success: every attempt has lead to attrocities and disaster. Anyone can come up with ideas that fail, but it takes a special talent to produce such massive human misery on such a consistent basis. And that's what communism does. The fact that there's no "true" communist governments does not indicate that communism isn't necessarily a complete and utter failure. Quite the reverse: it's part of the built-in mechanism FOR that consistent failure, and communism can and will never get past that. Mao was communist, Stalin was communist, Castro is communist, and they cannot be disavowed just to try to salvage one of the most destructive ideologies ever to stalk this planet.

[Beerina]

Ah, that takes me down memory lane! I had many words with one Victor Danilchenko who taught me that no true supporter of Marxism will ever admit that Communism was ever attained at any time by any nation on the planet. Ever.

It's interesting. We libertarian types also claim that no nation has ever been truly free with strong laws protecting personal freedom and property.

But at least there's a demonstrable correlation between relative freedom and general prosperity in a nation. Communism cannot claim this. Indeed, there is an inverse correlation between general prosperity and strong, centralized control of economics and lack of personal freedom and property rights.

[BPSCG]

We libertarian types also claim that no nation has ever been truly free with strong laws protecting personal freedom and property.You meant to say, "...without strong laws protecting personal freedom and property," right?

[rikzilla]

By that standard there are plenty of communists, just not Stalin and Mao.

Well, it isn't a failure. It isn't a success either. It is a largely undefined hypothetical construct. Golliboggelotz also isn't a failure.

There are plenty of 'true communists', but they tend to strive for a stateless classless utopia. Chavez does not appear to strive for such a thing, and looks to me more like an old fashioned democratic socialist.

No true supporter of human colonisation of the solar system will ever admit (if they are honest) that a permanent base on the moon was ever attained at any time, by any nation on the planet. That does not in itself invalidate their dream of doing so; a better argument would be that it would be an incredible waste of resources for no good reason.

If you want to criticise a political movement, you'll need to come up with better arguments than that its ultimate goal has never been achieved.

No, that's what Marx called "socialism".

I suggest you inform yourself a little better about a political philosophy before you start criticising it. It should be simple enough, with Wikipedia having pretty good articles on them all. Even without making up your own strawman versions of communism and Marxism (or any other political philosophy), there will be more then enough reasons to criticise them, trust me on that.

:dl:

Victor!! You're back!!!

:dl:

One question EB; How many people have been brutally murdered, enslaved, forced into gulags, or otherwise oppressed by the desire to perhaps, one day colonize the solar system??

The road to actual real communism is paved with human skulls....and yet we still have miles of skull-paved roads to yet build before we get there. That little tid-bit is a fact that I do know about this political philosophy. Personally, that's about all I need to know about it in order to firmly cancel my bumpy and terrifying trip down utopia lane.

-z

[Tricky]

It's interesting. We libertarian types also claim that no nation has ever been truly free with strong laws protecting personal freedom and property.

But at least there's a demonstrable correlation between relative freedom and general prosperity in a nation. Communism cannot claim this. Indeed, there is an inverse correlation between general prosperity and strong, centralized control of economics and lack of personal freedom and property rights.

Um... those are at least three things. Is it a 1-to-1-to1 correlation? Strong centralized control does not necessarily correlate (inversely or otherwise) to personal freedom and property rights. Indeed some of the near socialist governments of Europe have very strong personal freedoms, in some cases, more than we have in the US.

Of course, "personal freedoms" does not mean the same thing as "property rights" either, so I don't think your statement is very clear, leading me do doubt its accuracy.

[Ziggurat]

Um... those are at least three things. Is it a 1-to-1-to1 correlation?

No, I think what he's saying is (in pseudo-formal notation):

((strong, centralized control of economics) + (lack of personal freedom) + (lack of property rights)) -> (less general prosperity)

I took his statement to be ambiguous regarding what happens if you have strong centralized economic control but lots of personal freedom and property rights, for example.

[Earthborn]

Strong centralized control does not necessarily correlate (inversely or otherwise) to personal freedom and property rights.Really? I can't think of an exception.

Indeed some of the near socialist governments of Europe have very strong personal freedoms, in some cases, more than we have in the US.They also do not have strong centralised control over the economy. Whether correlation implies causation in another matter, but I think it is pretty clear that Beerina's proposed correlation does exist.

[NoZed Avenger]

Predictions of despotism, collapse, doom and gloom without so far a shred of evidence?



http://english.eluniversal.com/2007/05/22/en_pol_art_hrw:-chavez-uses-imp_22A872739.shtml

The Venezuelan government decision not to renew a broadcast license for private TV channel Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) endangers freedom of expression and is the result of political reasons, said Tuesday Human Rights Watch (HRW), Efe quoted.

President Hugo “Chávez is using improperly the state regulating authority to punish a media outlet due to criticism of the government,” said in a press release José Miguel Vivanco, executive director of the HWR Americas Division.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003578625


Looking back over five years of its assessments of media liberty, Freedom House said, Venezuela "had suffered the largest single decline in media independence." Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, backed by a legislature packed with supporters, has changed laws to pressure independent newspapers and television stations, whom he regards as political enemies.



http://cpj.org/protests/07ltrs/americas/ven24may07pl.html

Your administration has said that the decision concerning RCTV was not a sanction but simply the “natural and inexorable” result of the concession’s expiration. Yet you and other high-ranking officials have repeatedly accused RCTV employees of being “coup mongers” for the station’s support of a failed 2002 coup, of violating Venezuelan law, and of broadcasting pornography. CPJ believes that these accusations were used as a pretext to support the decision; the government has issued no sanctions or rulings against RCTV for these alleged violations.

The threat of losing access to the airwaves hangs over dozens of other television and radio stations whose licenses have also come up for renewal, prompting some news outlets to pull back on critical programming, CPJ research has found. The RCTV decision also comes as your administration has moved aggressively to expand state media and amplify its voice.
. . . .While the media in Venezuela have been able to criticize your government forcefully until now, this decision sets a chilling precedent.

Enough for a shred?

[mr rosewater]

It must be hot down there, I noticed they were using water cannon to break up the protest, really a shame watching them slip into darkness.

[WildCat]

Enough for a shred?
Gurdur will never admit that his beloved Hugo Chavez is actually a power-hungry 2-bit dictator. Oh no, he's a man of the people! Fighting against evil globalist corporations! Fighting for the common man against all enemies, real and imagined!

[Rob Lister]

Gurdur will never admit that his beloved Hugo Chavez is actually a power-hungry 2-bit dictator. Oh no, he's a man of the people! Fighting against evil globalist corporations! Fighting for the common man against all enemies, real and imagined!

I think the actions of Chevez are still rationally justifiable given the proper rhetoric. I'm hoping Gurdur will do his idealist job and join us today in defending this hero of the people.

[mr rosewater]

I think the actions of Chevez are still rationally justifiable given the proper rhetoric. I'm hoping Gurdur will do his idealist job and join us today in defending this hero of the people.


It should have a good dose of EVIL U.S. without it, well it's just words.


Castro with a check book, shame.

[Thunder]

Any bets on whether he will relinquish his special powers when they are do to expire, like he promised?

[BPSCG]

Sounds like Chavez is taking aim at another network (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070529/ts_afp/venezuelamediatelevisionrights_070529075526) as anti-government demonstrations begin.
The Venezuelan government also filed charges against local network Globovision, alleging it indirectly encouraged Chavez's murder by airing footage of the 1981 assassination attempt on the late pope John Paul II.

"In my view, this television network, in this specific part of its programming, committed the offense of incitement to assassination, against the Venezuelan head of state," Lara said.

The charges came amid protests against Chavez's shutdown of RCTV, a privately-owned broadcaster of popular comedy and drama shows that was boldly critical of Chavez.

After 54 years on the air, RCTV went dark at midnight Sunday after the government refused to renew its license. It was promptly replaced by TVes, a state-backed station which began broadcasting cultural shows.

On Monday several people were injured as police in Caracas fired rubber bullets and tear gas to put down a demonstration against the RCTV shutdown, following the fifth straight day of protests.The media rights group Reporters Without Borders said the move was "a serious violation of freedom of expression and a major setback to democracy and pluralism."

[Dave1001]

I agree that nationalizing industries is generally a bad thing because the govt. is generally a less efficient manager that private parties. At the same time, it seems the government can play a positive role as a regulator. Perhaps Venezuela should go for a more incremental approach than wholesale nationalization of companies and industries.

I think the country would benefit from more separation of powers, and for Chavez to have more competition as a leader. I like the guy who ran against him in the recent election, but I think opposition parties could be doing a much better job getting their message out, both to Venezuelans and to the world.

Also, like most other countries, I think Venezuela could learn from South Korea's self-transformation from the 1960s until today.

[marksman]

Apparently, Dave, Chavez disagrees. He seems to be following the Cuban model, rather than the South Korean.

[Darth Rotor]

I think the country would benefit from more separation of powers, and for Chavez to have more competition as a leader.
I think Saddam should have shared power too, and Kim Jong Il.

What you and I 'think' about the best way for Hugo to handle his role is rather beside the point. It is what he is actually doing that is the point.

DR

[Gurdur]

I agree that nationalizing industries is generally a bad thing because the govt. is generally a less efficient manager that private parties. .
Strangely enough, while that is often uttered as a mantra, from the empirical evidence it simply is not true in the case of certain industries.

The empirical evidence shows:

In the case of banking, a great deal of regulation of the private sector, and also some sort of government-run central bank as lender of last resort, has shown itself to be vitally necessary in all Western countries.
.
Related to the above, control of money supply and also control of printing money is a rather vital part for governmental monopolization.

While a very few nations actually do simply use the currency of some other country, a very major part of overall economic management is lost without such monopolization -- let alone pointing out that allowing currency to be issued fully privately brings a whole horde of problems and quickly becomes very expensive indeed to the end user / consumer.
.
In the case of rail networks, experience in Britain, New Zealand and Australia (following the '80's/'90's privatization failures there) has shown that in fact government running of the widespread rail networks was in fact far cheaper, more efficient and more safer than privatization.

The examples go to show you simply cannot claim per se that privatization is necessarily good. Yes, I am aware that a significant number of posters are libertarians, who believe very devoutly indeed in utter privatization; since in real life it is a tiny ideology with absolutely no impact except in catastrophic implementations (such as Somalia) and only negative examples to show (such as Somalia, that heaven of Libertopia), and since it's also a terribly internally inconsistant ideology, I simply can't be bothered with according it any respect.
Enough for a shred?
Not really. No joke.
Why?
Because:
A) We're discussing the refusal to renew a broadcasting station's licence, NOT preemptorily closing a station down.
.
B) Under that condition, if you regard that as necessarily dictatorial, then you would have to regard Thatcher's refusal to renew Thames Television's broadcasting licence as dictatorial, since it was very clear at the time her refusal was motivated by Thames Television showing the documentary. There are other such examples too.
.
C) There are plenty of other privately-owned broadcasting stations in Venezuala, in fact 80 % of the total broadcasting market, all not shut down.
.
D) The station in question supported a wannabe-dictatorial attempted military coup, and consistantly refused to show news coverage of huge public demonstrations. For that station to claim the refusal now (4 years afterwards) to renew its licence as some sort of free-speech issue would more than ring hollow, wouldn't it? For anyone else trying to claim this as a "dictatorial"/free-speech issue; where were they when the station refused to show news coverage of the anti-mitilary-dictatorship demonstrations? And in fact I notice several who defended Pinochet, a man most definitely NOT in favour of free speech, so I see much of the anti-Chávez camp as being extremely hypocritical in their denunciations and justifications thereof.
.
E) While all this is happening, the President of Honduras has ordered all stations -- ALL -- to carry government propaganda for two hours a day. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6690217.stm) This is prompted by his claims:
Mr Zelaya recently accused the owners of the country's news media of exploiting political and social problems in Honduras to get rich.
Apparently, reporting on the crime and terrible socioeconomic conditions in the Honduras is just a way of getting rich. Uh huh. But where, one wonders, where is the outrage here? Why is no-one jumping up and down about Zelaya? Can it be because Zelaya, despite being more dictatorial than Chávez by measurement of control of broadcasting content, is a pro-USA, rightist leader, and Chávez is a leftist who delights in giving the Bush admin the big A? Is that all there is to the anti-Chávez hysteria that existed on this thread till you came along to actually try discussing some facts, NoZed Avenger? Is all the outrage from their side at least, if not from yours, just so much hypocritical drama-queening?
.
F) Before this thread happened, I knew very little about Venezuala; but I did inform myself on it for the sake of this thread -- which is more than what a good deal of the flamers present on this thread did. In fact, I am rather astonished at the abysmal ignorance shown by the flamers; I can see at least one threatened economic decision by Chávez that I personally would think would be a terrible decision to make under the circumstances, yet until now, you, NoZed Avenger, have been the only anti-Chávez-opinionating person to come up with any facts whatsoever instead of crap rhetoric and name-calling, so I don't feel particularly helpful by say naming what I see as being threatened by Chávez as a very bad idea indeed. You see, I give respect where it's warranted, and I also give respect up until it is proven that it is unwarranted, so with the exception of you, so far the Chávez-condemning side have been very short on facts and very long on empty abuse.

No-one has even yet honestly answered my question of why they get their panties into such a bunch over Chávez yet. BPSCG tried claiming some sort of moral condemantion of Chávez (theft etc.) but in view of the fact that BPSCG could not even give a proper factual analysis, and in view of the fact that nationalization does not automatically equal theft, no matter how much BPSCG whines, and also in view of the fact that BPSCG just does not have any valid consistant moral basis from which to be issuing such moral condemnations (see below and previous posts), then hey, that's simply another empty flamer to write off.

Anyway, NoZed Avenger, that's my general view on your question; over to you now, and maybe we can get a REAL discussion going on the pros and cons of Chávez.
___________________

Now to dispose of the garbage:
It.....But at least there's a demonstrable correlation between relative freedom and general prosperity in a nation.
Hmmm, Beerina, what's your position on Pinochet or the Argentinian military dictatorship?
And Darth Rotor might well disagree with you; he and several others seem to think Pinochet's dictatorship was economically good for Chile.
Communism cannot claim this.
* Big yawn*
Communism is not at stake here. Earth to flamers: no matter how much you prance, Chávez is not a Communist. It so far is simply not an issue, merely a term of abuse cast around in this thread.

Earth to extremist libertarians:
the real world is far, FAR more than libertarianism versus communism.
Gurdur will never admit that his beloved Hugo Chavez is actually a power-hungry 2-bit dictator.....

Which part of "elected" do you fail to understand, WildCat? The last Venezualan elections were also certified significantly free and fair by international observers. Now, WildCat, I also asked you for facts beforehand, and instead of giving me facts you're giving me pointless abuse, since it would be a lie of yours to claim that Chávez is somehow my "beloved" figure or something. I never cared much about Venezuala before, and I still don't, something I believe I stated before; so, WildCat, you would be lying were you to try claiming any special significance of Chávez to me. Get that? Or does it need to be spelled out in monosyllabic words for you?
So, WildCat, seems others such as NoZed Avenger do better at providing facts than you do; well, WildCat, are you going to get serious or not, or are you simply personally abusive only because I don't agree with you? Will you answer that honestly or not?
I note with ironic satisfaction how BPSCG was whining on some other thread about Oliver allegedly giving him the rhetorical run-around, while on this thread BPSCG simply wrote himself off by descending into meaningless and untrue personal abuse; it seems BPSCG's morals are most conspiciously highly variable and change 180° to suit himself in any situation, which BTW becomes in an extended way one of my main points -- see my above reply to NoZed Avenger, specifically hypocrisy.
Fighting for the common man against all enemies, real and imagined!
Tell us again how the USA is winning in Iraq, or how defeat there is all the fault of the Iraqis or something. I mean, if you want to be stupid, it's easy to do the rhetorical come-backs, knowing your record. All too easy, given your numerous reality-free apologias.
So, last offer: are you going to get serious, or do I write you off like BPSCG, someone whose opinion simply doesn't matter because they are too .... contradictory, petty and only pretending to morality? Serious question.
I think the actions of Chevez are still rationally justifiable given the proper rhetoric. I'm hoping Gurdur will do his idealist job and join us today in defending this hero of the people.
Strangely enough, I am not an idealist in the sense you mean, nor is it my job to defend Chávez; I simply note facts and indulge in political values discussion and analysis. Seems you want something else, and as far as I'm concerned, what you personally want, Rob Lister, looks like being worthless, and I won't even try in your case. Knowing something of posters' histories is such a boon. Why don't you try USENET? Helpful hint for you there.
I just read this thread from start to finish. I have to side with those critical of Chavez with respect to a lack of answers from the supporters of his policies, in this thread.
Gurdur, declaring a question to be answered is not the same as actualy answering the question. Perhaps it's time for you to read the thread?
Left this little gem till last, since it's the most worthless one of all. But a lot of fun, so I will answer it line by line.
I have to side with those critical of Chavez
Who are you again, and why on earth do you think your fact-less opinion matters in the slightest?
with respect to a lack of answers
*snicker*
A lack of answers indeed. Tons of my questions have gone unanswered here in this thread.
Gurdur, declaring a question to be answered is not the same as actualy answering the question.
If you have any real issue to discuss, name it in detail. Or are you simply being silly?
Perhaps it's time for you to read the thread?
< sarcasm>
Yeah, with all my previous answers I did not do them by reading the thread whatsoever, they were all done by random typing and mental osmosis.
</sarcasm>
OK, don't bother answering my question on whether you were simply being silly; it's kinda obvious already.

[WildCat]

Which part of "elected" do you fail to understand, WildCat? The last Venezualan elections were also certified significantly free and fair by international observers. Now, WildCat, I also asked you for facts beforehand, and instead of giving me facts you're giving me pointless abuse, since it would be a lie of yours to claim that Chávez is somehow my "beloved" figure or something.
My oh my, you sure have a lot to say about a topic you claim not to care about!

Perhaps you missed the part about how Chavez stacked the Supreme Court and had his puppets in the legislature grant him dictatorial powers. He's now shut down an independent TV station and replaced it with a station that broadcasts only pro-Chavez, pro-socialist propaganda.

The test of Venezuela's democratic status was not the last election, but the next one.

[BPSCG]

Strangely enough, while that is often uttered as a mantra, from the empirical evidence it simply is not true in the case of certain industries.

The empirical evidence shows:
In the case of banking, a great deal of regulation of the private sector, and also some sort of government-run central bank as lender of last resort, has shown itself to be vitally necessary in all Western countries.
.
Related to the above, control of money supply and also control of printing money is a rather vital part for governmental monopolization.

While a very few nations actually do simply use the currency of some other country, a very major part of overall economic management is lost without such monopolization -- let alone pointing out that allowing currency to be issued fully privately brings a whole horde of problems and quickly becomes very expensive indeed to the end user / consumer.
.
In the case of rail networks, experience in Britain, New Zealand and Australia (following the '80's/'90's privatization failures there) has shown that in fact government running of the widespread rail networks was in fact far cheaper, more efficient and more safer than privatization.The examples go to show you simply cannot claim per se that privatization is necessarily good. Yes, I am aware that a significant number of posters are libertarians, who believe very devoutly indeed in utter privatization; since in real life it is a tiny ideology with absolutely no impact except in catastrophic implementations (such as Somalia) and only negative examples to show (such as Somalia, that heaven of Libertopia), and since it's also a terribly internally inconsistant ideology, I simply can't be bothered with according it any respect.

Not really. No joke.
Why?
Because:
A) We're discussing the refusal to renew a broadcasting station's licence, NOT preemptorily closing a station down.
.
B) Under that condition, if you regard that as necessarily dictatorial, then you would have to regard Thatcher's refusal to renew Thames Television's broadcasting licence as dictatorial, since it was very clear at the time her refusal was motivated by Thames Television showing the documentary. There are other such examples too.
.
C) There are plenty of other privately-owned broadcasting stations in Venezuala, in fact 80 % of the total broadcasting market, all not shut down.
.
D) The station in question supported a wannabe-dictatorial attempted military coup, and consistantly refused to show news coverage of huge public demonstrations. For that station to claim the refusal now (4 years afterwards) to renew its licence as some sort of free-speech issue would more than ring hollow, wouldn't it? For anyone else trying to claim this as a "dictatorial"/free-speech issue; where were they when the station refused to show news coverage of the anti-mitilary-dictatorship demonstrations? And in fact I notice several who defended Pinochet, a man most definitely NOT in favour of free speech, so I see much of the anti-Chávez camp as being extremely hypocritical in their denunciations and justifications thereof.
.
E) While all this is happening, the President of Honduras has ordered all stations -- ALL -- to carry government propaganda for two hours a day. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6690217.stm) This is prompted by his claims:

Apparently, reporting on the crime and terrible socioeconomic conditions in the Honduras is just a way of getting rich. Uh huh. But where, one wonders, where is the outrage here? Why is no-one jumping up and down about Zelaya? Can it be because Zelaya, despite being more dictatorial than Chávez by measurement of control of broadcasting content, is a pro-USA, rightist leader, and Chávez is a leftist who delights in giving the Bush admin the big A? Is that all there is to the anti-Chávez hysteria that existed on this thread till you came along to actually try discussing some facts, NoZed Avenger? Is all the outrage from their side at least, if not from yours, just so much hypocritical drama-queening?
.
F) Before this thread happened, I knew very little about Venezuala; but I did inform myself on it for the sake of this thread -- which is more than what a good deal of the flamers present on this thread did. In fact, I am rather astonished at the abysmal ignorance shown by the flamers; I can see at least one threatened economic decision by Chávez that I personally would think would be a terrible decision to make under the circumstances, yet until now, you, NoZed Avenger, have been the only anti-Chávez-opinionating person to come up with any facts whatsoever instead of crap rhetoric and name-calling, so I don't feel particularly helpful by say naming what I see as being threatened by Chávez as a very bad idea indeed. You see, I give respect where it's warranted, and I also give respect up until it is proven that it is unwarranted, so with the exception of you, so far the Chávez-condemning side have been very short on facts and very long on empty abuse.

No-one has even yet honestly answered my question of why they get their panties into such a bunch over Chávez yet. BPSCG tried claiming some sort of moral condemantion of Chávez (theft etc.) but in view of the fact that BPSCG could not even give a proper factual analysis, and in view of the fact that nationalization does not automatically equal theft, no matter how much BPSCG whines, and also in view of the fact that BPSCG just does not have any valid consistant moral basis from which to be issuing such moral condemnations (see below and previous posts), then hey, that's simply another empty flamer to write off.

Anyway, NoZed Avenger, that's my general view on your question; over to you now, and maybe we can get a REAL discussion going on the pros and cons of Chávez.
___________________

Now to dispose of the garbage:

Hmmm, Beerina, what's your position on Pinochet or the Argentinian military dictatorship?
And Darth Rotor might well disagree with you; he and several others seem to think Pinochet's dictatorship was economically good for Chile.

* Big yawn*
Communism is not at stake here. Earth to flamers: no matter how much you prance, Chávez is not a Communist. It so far is simply not an issue, merely a term of abuse cast around in this thread.

Earth to extremist libertarians:
the real world is far, FAR more than libertarianism versus communism.

Which part of "elected" do you fail to understand, WildCat? The last Venezualan elections were also certified significantly free and fair by international observers. Now, WildCat, I also asked you for facts beforehand, and instead of giving me facts you're giving me pointless abuse, since it would be a lie of yours to claim that Chávez is somehow my "beloved" figure or something. I never cared much about Venezuala before, and I still don't, something I believe I stated before; so, WildCat, you would be lying were you to try claiming any special significance of Chávez to me. Get that? Or does it need to be spelled out in monosyllabic words for you?
So, WildCat, seems others such as NoZed Avenger do better at providing facts than you do; well, WildCat, are you going to get serious or not, or are you simply personally abusive only because I don't agree with you? Will you answer that honestly or not?
I note with ironic satisfaction how BPSCG was whining on some other thread about Oliver allegedly giving him the rhetorical run-around, while on this thread BPSCG simply wrote himself off by descending into meaningless and untrue personal abuse; it seems BPSCG's morals are most conspiciously highly variable and change 180° to suit himself in any situation, which BTW becomes in an extended way one of my main points -- see my above reply to NoZed Avenger, specifically hypocrisy.

Tell us again how the USA is winning in Iraq, or how defeat there is all the fault of the Iraqis or something. I mean, if you want to be stupid, it's easy to do the rhetorical come-backs, knowing your record. All too easy, given your numerous reality-free apologias.
So, last offer: are you going to get serious, or do I write you off like BPSCG, someone whose opinion simply doesn't matter because they are too .... contradictory, petty and only pretending to morality? Serious question.

Strangely enough, I am not an idealist in the sense you mean, nor is it my job to defend Chávez; I simply note facts and indulge in political values discussion and analysis. Seems you want something else, and as far as I'm concerned, what you personally want, Rob Lister, looks like being worthless, and I won't even try in your case. Knowing something of posters' histories is such a boon. Why don't you try USENET? Helpful hint for you there.

Left this little gem till last, since it's the most worthless one of all. But a lot of fun, so I will answer it line by line.

Who are you again, and why on earth do you think your fact-less opinion matters in the slightest?

*snicker*
A lack of answers indeed. Tons of my questions have gone unanswered here in this thread.

If you have any real issue to discuss, name it in detail. Or are you simply being silly?

< sarcasm>
Yeah, with all my previous answers I did not do them by reading the thread whatsoever, they were all done by random typing and mental osmosis.
</sarcasm>
OK, don't bother answering my question on whether you were simply being silly; it's kinda obvious already.Gurdur! You're back! :yahoo:biggrin: :clap:

Here I'd thought you had abandoned the battlefield, when in fact you were carefully crafting your devastating, one-punch, rhetorical knockout blow of logorrheic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/logorrhea) purity to all your critics, among whose number, I am pleased to observe, you have included your humble and obedient servant! Sir, you do me honor beyond measure.

Now that you are back, could you please do me a kindness? I have asked you the same question three times now, but have not once received a reply. I am sure this is simply an oversight on your part, so I will ask it again (this is the fourth time), but this time in red boldface in a font you can not possibly miss unless you have been jabbing knitting needles in your eyes, in which case I must insist you desist:

What do you call the nationalization of one major industry after another, with no evidence of intent to stop, coupled with explicitly stated hatred of capitalism and openly-expressed admiration of the world's most notable communist leader? If it isn't communism, what is it?

Now, you claimed earlier that you'd already answered that question, so you can simply link to that post, or you can copy-and-paste your answer. Oh, and "nationalization != communism" is not an answer to that question, so please don't try to fob it off as one. You'll have to do better. Tell us all what it is, not what it isn't.

Welcome back, my son. I cannot begin to tell you how lonely and empty the days have been without your presence here.

[NoZed Avenger]

Not really. No joke.
Why?
Because:
A) We're discussing the refusal to renew a broadcasting station's licence, NOT preemptorily closing a station down.
.
B) Under that condition, if you regard that as necessarily dictatorial, then you would have to regard Thatcher's refusal to renew Thames Television's broadcasting licence as dictatorial, since it was very clear at the time her refusal was motivated by Thames Television showing the documentary. There are other such examples too.
.
C) There are plenty of other privately-owned broadcasting stations in Venezuala, in fact 80 % of the total broadcasting market, all not shut down.
.
D) The station in question supported a wannabe-dictatorial attempted military coup, and consistantly refused to show news coverage of huge public demonstrations. For that station to claim the refusal now (4 years afterwards) to renew its licence as some sort of free-speech issue would more than ring hollow, wouldn't it? For anyone else trying to claim this as a "dictatorial"/free-speech issue; where were they when the station refused to show news coverage of the anti-mitilary-dictatorship demonstrations? And in fact I notice several who defended Pinochet, a man most definitely NOT in favour of free speech, so I see much of the anti-Chávez camp as being extremely hypocritical in their denunciations and justifications thereof.


I'll pass along that it's no big deal to Reporters without borders, the Committee to Protect Reporters, Freedom House, and the other half-dozen or so organizations that, as shown by my quotes above, were somewhat alarmed.

I'm sure that they'll be relieved that they've blown this "largest single decline in media independence" in the world WAY out of proportion.


I'm sure they'll sleep better.

[Gurdur]

My oh my, you sure have a lot to say about a topic you claim not to care about!
*shrug*
I have a real interest in some of the associated issues, such as nationalizations, overall economic policy etc., and a genuine curiousity in why you and others get your panties so twisted about Chávez. So sue me.

But more to the point: are you man enough to retract your previous claim about Chávez being my beloved whatever, or are you simply being stupid and dishonestly abusive merely because I disagree with you?
Perhaps you missed the part about how Chavez stacked the Supreme Court
Describe in detail the alleged stacking and specify how it differs in essence from Bush's stacking of the SCOTUS.
and had his puppets in the legislature grant him dictatorial powers.
You mean his party, I guess. They're not his "puppets", merely elected legislative reoresentitives. Sheeeesh, who do you think you're fooling with all the name-calling?
He's now shut down an independent TV station
Refused to renew its licence, actually. Different thing.

NOW, if you're serious, answer all my points made to NoZed Avenger in regard to that.
The test of Venezuela's democratic status was not the last election, but the next one.
Oh, I SEE!
So, despite your claim, he's not a dictator after all, but you want to say he might become one!

Heavens above, why youldn't you say that then, instead of indulging in all the tiresomely pointless crap you posted instead?

*sigh*
Anyway, back to the question; do I take you seriously or not? I've being honest and upfront to you about my motivations; do I get an honest answer from you, and a retraction, or do I simply class you along with say BPSCG, or along with (worse) Ion and Danish D?

[Gurdur]

I'll pass along that it's no big deal to Reporters without borders, the Committee to Protect Reporters, Freedom House, and the other half-dozen or so organizations that, as shown by my quotes above, were somewhat alarmed.
....
I'm sure they'll sleep better.
Sheeesh, what does one have to do to get a REAL, thoughtful answer around here?

NoZed Avenger, I'm disappointed in you. I think you could make a far better anti-Chávez case, and you're not even trying.
I'm sure that they'll be relieved that they've blown this "largest single decline in media independence" in the world WAY out of proportion.
* snicker* * bollocks *
Given the very nasty Putin-led clamp-down on the free media in Russia, the in effect loss of press freedom in Iraq (by murder of reporters), the Honduras government's actions (which you totally failed to address), the situation in the Ukraine, and the recent EU-condemned moves by the Polish govt mooting censorship of the Teletubbies, claiming that failure to renew one station's licence (one out of many who are not closed down) in Venezuala as the "largest single decline in media independence in the world" strikes me as only hypocritical drama-queening.

Which brings me back to my question:
Just why all the drama-queening over Chávez? Why the panties in twists?

From my POV, really weird.

[WildCat]

Describe in detail the alleged stacking and specify how it differs in essence from Bush's stacking of the SCOTUS.
Chavez didn't replace retiring justices with his own nominations - he actually increased the size of the court from 20 to 32 justices and filled those spots with political loyalists. Nothing remotely resembling this was done by Bush.

You mean his party, I guess. They're not his "puppets", merely elected legislative reoresentitives. Sheeeesh, who do you think you're fooling with all the name-calling?
Once again, let's see how the next election goes.

Refused to renew its licence, actually. Different thing.
No, it's not. If Bush told the FCC not to renew the licences of CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN and replced them with programming praising the policies of the Republican Party would you be so smug about it?

Oh, I SEE!
So, despite your claim, he's not a dictator after all, but you want to say he might become one!
No, he is at this very moment a dictator, with the power to rule by decree.

*sigh*
Anyway, back to the question; do I take you seriously or not?
How will I sleep at night if you don't? :rolleyes:

[Gurdur]

Chavez didn't replace retiring justices with his own nominations - he actually increased the size of the court from 20 to 32 justices and filled those spots with political loyalists. Nothing remotely resembling this was done by Bush.
Fascinating. I can almost remember when Lloyd George threatened to stack the House of Lords by creating a whole new bunch of peers. Now THAT was an interesting time! Would discuss this one more deeply with you, but see below.
Once again, let's see how the next election goes.
So he's not actually a dictator yet, and you were only name-calling. Settled.
would you be so smug about it?
*yawn*
Name-calling, again. BTW, you're wrong yet again.
No, he is at this very moment a dictator, with the power to rule by decree.
Bollocks. The decrees only cover certain areas. Name-calling again, empty.
How will I sleep at night if you don't? :rolleyes:
Doesn't worry ME in the slightest if you don't want to be taken seriously, mate. :p I shall simply stop, right now. Just wanted to get it all straight. I like to know with whom I can discuss and argue, and with whom I can't, since they simply won't be honest.

Tell us all about how the USA is winning the Iraq war, instead. I'm always amazed by your endless creativity on that one. I mean, you're certainly not going to tell us the honest answer about the reasons for the wadded state of your panties on Chávez, so tell us about how Chávez will beg for money from you instead, or tell us about Iraq. That one never tires.

[WildCat]

Fascinating. I can almost remember when Lloyd George threatened to stack the House of Lords by creating a whole new bunch of peers. Now THAT was an interesting time! Would discuss this one more deeply with you, but see below.
Is that the sound of the goalposts moving, or just trying to change the subject now that the fallacy of your argument was pointed out?

So he's not actually a dictator yet, and you were only name-calling. Settled.
No, he is a dictator now.

*yawn*
Avoidance noted.

Bollocks. The decrees only cover certain areas. Name-calling again, empty.
Really? Can you cite these "certain areas"?

Tell us all about how the USA is winning the Iraq war, instead. I'm always amazed by your endless creativity on that one. I mean, you're certainly not going to tell us the honest answer about the reasons for the wadded state of your panties on Chávez, so tell us about how Chávez will beg for money from you instead, or tell us about Iraq. That one never tires.
I've been of the opinion for quite a while now that we should have no part of the civil war in Iraq, I'd be quite happy to see us leave and Iran can grab the prize they so badly seek. Let them have fun with it for a while. But carry on with your fantasy of my present position if you wish.

[Darth Rotor]

Chavez didn't replace retiring justices with his own nominations - he actually increased the size of the court from 20 to 32 justices and filled those spots with political loyalists. Nothing remotely resembling this was done by Bush.
IIRC, FDR tried it back in the 1930's. (Brandeis opposed him, I think. Memory hazy.)
No, it's not. If Bush told the FCC not to renew the licences of CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN and replced them with programming praising the policies of the Republican Party would you be so smug about it?
That would give Fox a monopoly, right? :eye-poppi
No, he is at this very moment a dictator, with the power to rule by decree.
If not all the way there, getting there.

DR

[NoZed Avenger]

Sheeesh, what does one have to do to get a REAL, thoughtful answer around here?

NoZed Avenger, I'm disappointed in you. I think you could make a far better anti-Chávez case, and you're not even trying.



You're right about that last part.

If I thought you'd actually listen to anything that I had to say, I wouldn't mind expending more effort. As it is, I just wanted to see if news stories from myriad organizations that are not 'right wing' would give you pause for thought. It didn't.

But I am not disappointed, because it went as expected.

[BPSCG]

It appears that, having declared victory, Gurdur feels no need to answer my question, which was (this is the fifth time):

What do you call the nationalization of one major industry after another, with no evidence of intent to stop, coupled with explicitly stated hatred of capitalism and openly-expressed admiration of the world's most notable communist leader? If it isn't communism, what is it?

Chicken.

Cluck cluck cluck.

The latest:

Chavez said his refusal to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television, which went off the air at midnight Sunday, is "a sovereign, legitimate decision in which there is no argument."Gurdur, isn't the right to argue fundamental to a democracy?

He said the remaining opposition-sided channel Globovision had encouraged attempts on his life and warned that if it wants "to continue calling for disobedience, inciting assassination ... I'm going to warn them before the nation... I recommend they take a tranquilizer, that they slow down, because if not, I'm going to slow them down." Emphasis mine. Translation: "You will obey me or I will shut you down." Gurdur, does that sound like a man of democratic principles to you?
Chavez did not elaborate, but also warned that radio stations should not be inciting violence by "manipulating feelings" among the populace.Yes, "manipulating feelings" against the government is eeeevil. Anyone who buys that would also believe Bush should shut down the New York Times and their New York radio station, WQXR. Gurdur, how would you feel about that?

Sorry to burden you with all these questions when you still haven't answered the one at the top of this post after five requests. You're building up quite a backlog...

[WildCat]

IIRC, FDR tried it back in the 1930's. (Brandeis opposed him, I think. Memory hazy.)
He did indeed, but I didn't mention that because Gurdur claimed it was no different than what Bush has done with the SCOTUS. When the incredible difference was pointed out to him, in true woo fashion he quickly changed the subject without conceding the point.

[BPSCG]

IIRC, FDR tried it back in the 1930's. (Brandeis opposed him, I think. Memory hazy.)

He did indeed, but I didn't mention that because Gurdur claimed it was no different than what Bush has done with the SCOTUS. When the incredible difference was pointed out to him, in true woo fashion he quickly changed the subject without conceding the point.

It wasn't just Brandeis who opposed Roosevelt's plan to pack to court (i.e., appoint an additional justice for every one on the court over age 70-1/2). Public opinion was against it and Congress was against it. When the bill containing the language (among other judiciary reforms) got to the Senate, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to send it back to committee where all the "packing" language was taken out.

In other words, Roosevelt used legal methods to try to get his way, and failed. When he failed, the issue was closed.

[BPSCG]

...apart from their initials, that is? And a fondness for socialized medicine?

Answer: They both believe in the existence of a vast right-wing conspiracy (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060100201.html):Speaking during an event Thursday with the visiting leader of Vietnam's communist party, Chavez said "international rightist, extreme-rightist and fascist movements are attacking Venezuela from everywhere _ from Europe, the United States, Brasilia."

He targeted Brazil's Senate for approving a motion earlier in the day including a call for Chavez to reopen the channel.

"Nobody should interfere," Chavez said, accusing lawmakers in Brazil of "repeating like a parrot what is said in Washington."

"To those representatives of the Brazilian right, I say that it is much, much, much more probable that the Portuguese empire will again install itself in Brasilia than that the Venezuelan government will return the expired (broadcast) concession to the Venezuelan oligarchy," Chavez said.

(...snip...)

Relative calm returned to the streets after three days of protests and clashes between police and angry crowds hurling rocks and bottles.

University students planned to hold another large protest in Caracas Friday.

[Damien Evans]

Which part of "elected" do you fail to understand, WildCat?

Gurdur: Robert Mugabe was elected, Saddam Hussein was elected, the Taliban were elected, and many more besides

Does this mean that they are not or were not dictators?

[Damien Evans]

Gurdur, are you planning on answering my question?

[BPSCG]

Gurdur, are you planning on answering my question?Gurdur doesn't answer questions. He simply does Al Gore impressions *sigh*, and otherwise shows his *shrug* disdain for your questions and arguments by behaving rudely *yawn*. He then makes unsubstantiated claims, declares *big yawn* victory, and goes home.

I know eighth-graders who debate more maturely.

[Damien Evans]

Gurdur doesn't answer questions. He simply does Al Gore impressions *sigh*, and otherwise shows his *shrug* disdain for your questions and arguments by behaving rudely *yawn*. He then makes unsubstantiated claims, declares *big yawn* victory, and goes home.

I know eighth-graders who debate more maturely.

Ah, one of those "debaters"...

Thanks for the tip

[Beerina]

Um... those are at least three things. Is it a 1-to-1-to1 correlation? Strong centralized control does not necessarily correlate (inversely or otherwise) to personal freedom and property rights. Indeed some of the near socialist governments of Europe have very strong personal freedoms, in some cases, more than we have in the US.

Of course, "personal freedoms" does not mean the same thing as "property rights" either, so I don't think your statement is very clear, leading me do doubt its accuracy.

By "strong central control", I am referring to the statist concept. I also separated out personal freedoms from property, which I should not do, as they are one and the same.

And I would conclude that a country with strong personal rights, but weak property rights, would indeed not be pulling its weight as far as advancing technology goes. Some in Europe may be doing better than the average chaotic country around the world (which lack protection of rights due to very weak or non-existent governments), but are still a long way from optimal. It may take awhile for their technology to grind to a halt as a strong government takeover will inherit largely functioning infrastructure, including scientists and businesses, but it happens eventually.

[Beerina]

Apparently, Dave, Chavez disagrees. He seems to be following the Cuban model, rather than the South Korean.

Turn your country into a thugocracy with him as the absolute ruler, creating grinding poverty, and waiting for a giant country to send you money to keep you alive, rather than turn your little country into a freedom-based economic juggernaut?

[NoZed Avenger]

Well, this is all easily explained: the press is being
"democratised"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6715955.stm

"democratising television and radio"

“I’ve made a call to the private media… make no mistake, watch carefully where you tread,” Mr Chavez said.

“If the bourgeoisie of Venezuela continues to become desperate, and continues to try to undermine the Bolivarian people of Venezuela, they will continue losing their possessions one by one. One by one!” he said.


The march of democracy continues.

In hobnailed boots.

[Darth Rotor]

Well, this is all easily explained: the press is being
"democratised"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6715955.stm

"democratising television and radio"

The march of democracy continues.

In hobnailed boots.
Will the necklacing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing) of the bourgeoise soon commence, or is that more a Haitian/South African tradition?

ETA: Oops, didn't realize that the Brazillian drug lords had a variation on this theme.

DR

[BPSCG]

“If the bourgeoisie of Venezuela continues to become desperate, and continues to try to undermine the Bolivarian people of Venezuela, they will continue losing their possessions one by one. One by one!” he said.
Ah, Marxism's favorite bogeyman, the bourgeoisie! Whether financiers, industrialists, or simply shopkeepers, they're all eeeeevil, because they do not live directly by the sale of their labor, but rather by employing others to work for them. Funny, the only political philosophy that has a problem with this concept is communism.

But no, Chavez is not a communist. He only talks like one and acts like one.

I think it's time to amend my question to Gurdur: What do you call the nationalization of one major industry after another, with no evidence of intent to stop, coupled with explicitly stated hatred of capitalism, openly-expressed admiration of the world's most notable communist leader, and threats to confiscate private property? If it isn't communism, what is it?

[Darth Rotor]

Ah, Marxism's favorite bogeyman, the bourgeoisie!
Check.
But no, Chavez is not a communist. He only talks like one and acts like one.
Quack.
I think it's time to amend my question to Gurdur: What do you call the nationalization of one major industry after another, with no evidence of intent to stop, coupled with explicitly stated hatred of capitalism, openly-expressed admiration of the world's most notable communist leader, and threats to confiscate private property? If it isn't communism, what is it?
Call it "predatory socialism?" ;)

DR

[BPSCG]

Call it "predatory socialism?" ;)

DR:biggrin: Yeah. Like September 11 was "proactive urban renewal."