Venezuela devaluates its currency

Rebelheart

ei.sdraob wrote: »

:rolleyes: sigh

as i said earlier in thread (if you bothered to read) Ireland is also a corrupt and perverse form of Socialism

yet you continue to blame Capitalism and free markets for what here and in Venezuela are problems caused by Socialistic line of thinking and acting

well done you just nicely made a point for me with your post

whether its Chavez making everyone poorer so few get richer or Cowen making everyone here poorer in order to keep few rich, its all the same problem
Socialism, populism and belief that the state has the right to rape everyone for the sake of few

the fact that you fail to see that both countries have issues caused by same line of thinking, and then turn around and support that line, makes me feel sorry for you

/

So where, pray tell, does your capitalist utopia reside? "Sigh" indeed; you stated that Chávez was a dictator when the guy was, in fact, repeatedly elected in a popular vote, the most recent of which was in 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006

Now, please desist from talking nonsense on this particular issue.

ei.sdraob

ah so we are now avoiding answering my point about Socialism being the cause of the problems here in Ireland and Venezuela

Rebelheart wrote: »

So where, pray tell, does your capitalist utopia reside? "Sigh" indeed; you stated that Chávez was a dictator when the guy was, in fact, repeatedly elected in a popular vote, the most recent of which was in 2006:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006

Now, please desist from talking nonsense on this particular issue.

how about i tell you once again to read this thread and what was posted already

wikipedia wrote:

The Venezuelan president is elected by a vote with direct and universal suffrage, and functions as both head of state and head of government. The term of office is six years, and (as of 15 February 2009) a president may be re-elected an unlimited number of times. The president appoints the vice-president and decides the size and composition of the Cabinet and makes appointments to it with the involvement of the legislature. The president can ask the legislature to reconsider portions of laws he finds objectionable, but a simple parliamentary majority can override these objections.

need I remind you that Hitler was also elected "democratically" by a majority, based on populist policies and could stay in power indefinitely
we all know how that ended up
or lets take the example of Chavez's buddy Fidel Castro, after whom Chavez wants to sculpt his ruling ways after


lets lookup the definition of dictator shall we?

A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes but not always with military control) but, without hereditary ascension

yep that pretty much describes this guy


lets see some history now

On 06 December 1998, running on a populist platform of anti-corruption and pro-welfare reform, Chávez won the election with a 56.2% electoral margin, which was notably one of the largest margins in decades in Venezuela. When Chávez took power on 02 February, 1999, more than 80% of the population was living in poverty, so it is not surprising that promises of a redistribution of wealth was popular with a large number of poor Venezuelans.
...
populist Chávez styled himself as a Robin Hood figure to gain support with the impoverished.
...
In 1999, The constitution was re-written and a new Consitutional Assembly was created, with pro-Chávez representatives taking 120 of 131 seats, and giving him a clear majority. By Augusat of the same year a "judicial state of emergency" was declared, giving Chávez unchecked power to remove judges; later that month a "legislative state of emergency" was declared, leaving a seven man committee in charge of legislative functions; subsequently the Congress was barred from meeting.
....
In December of 1999 a nationwide referendum was approved to extend the term of the president to 6 years and impose a term limit of two terms on the president; the previous term limit had been one term
....
Towards the end of Chávez's rule by decree in November 2001, he enacted a spate of new legislation. One of these "reforms" called for the expropriation of unused private lands with compensation for re-distribution to small farmers.
....
On 11 April 2002, chaos erupted in Venezuela, with huge protests of over half a million people organized demanding the immediate resignation Chávez. Chávez ordered the military to control the riots
....
In August 2004, a second petition was organized, this time with 3,5 million signatures and a referendum was held but almost 60% of the voting population opposed to remove Chávez from office. However, results were later found to have irregularities, with more than 40% of the population not taking part in the vote, despite reports that voters had turned out in record numbers.
....
In May 2004 another coup plot was reported foiled by the Venezuelan government
.....
The National Guard or state police force in Venezuela has been accused of intimidation and bullying tactics of opposition, reminiscent of the Mussolini brownshirts in the 1930's. It is also troubling that nationalism and xenophobia are seemingly fostered by the government, combined with a push to have the population loyal to Chávez and not to the country. He has created a cult of personality about himself, creating the illusion to the masses that he is infallible; as a speaker Chávez has a bombastic style, literally working his audience up into a frenzy.

hmm let me see a platform of popular socialism that uses the military to keep people under thumb, where have we seen that before

this guy is a textbook dictator

its hilarious seeing some misguided people having "great respect for him"

Joey the lips

ei.sdraob wrote: »

if no one is willing to invest hard money in starting up business, then who will?

you admire a dictator? well enough said so

omg either your being stubborn or just out for a row. I said he was socialist. He does not want Foreign Direct Investment. Thats why he took control of the oil.

As for dictator..... Been reading the CIA manuals I see. No doubt we will be told of his WMD's soon enough.

You still have not shown me the proof. Your just argueing for the sake of argueing.

alastair

ei.sdraob wrote: »

this guy is a textbook dictator

If your textbook involves repeatedly democratically elected politicians being described as 'dictators'. The Venezualan presidency doesn't involve absolute power, and it's subject to an electoral mandate. Strangely the definition of a populist ticket is pretty much down to appealing to the electorate. You'll need to produce something scarier than popular policies to paint Chavez as a dictator. Sure Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected once, but they didn't hang on to any electoral mandate, and siezed absolute power - not until then were they dictators. Chavez mightn't be an entirely admirable character, but he remains in power on the basis of an electoral system that's open to anyone else who choses to campaign against him.

Rebelheart

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ah so we are now avoiding answering my point about Socialism being the cause of the problems here in Ireland and Venezuela

Patently it's not, unless you have an idiosyncratic definition of "socialism". And you are avoiding naming this supposed capitalist utopia of yours.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

need I remind you that Hitler was also elected "democratically" by a majority, based on populist policies and could stay in power indefinitely
we all know how that ended up
or lets take the example of Chavez's buddy Fidel Castro, after whom Chavez wants to sculpt his ruling ways after


lets lookup the definition of dictator shall we?

yep that pretty much describes this guy


lets see some history now


hmm let me see a platform of popular socialism that uses the military to keep people under thumb, where have we seen that before

this guy is a textbook dictator

its hilarious seeing some misguided people having "great respect for him"

OK, so Chávez is a "dictator" because, as you highlight, the people voted to pass a law which stated that a president may be re-elected an unlimited number of times.

And because he can be re-elected by the people this makes him a dictator? Ahem! That's unique if nothing else. The Hitler analogy at least should be embarrassing for you, but would put a smile on Mike Godwin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Anton.Mamyko

Revolution will not be televised. watch it.

Rebelheart

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Revolution will not be televised. watch it.

Great documentary, superb timing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_%28documentary%29

Joey the lips

Anton.Mamyko wrote: »

Revolution will not be televised. watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPPpL9z9GE

Seen it....Beep. A dictator indeed.:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

alastair wrote: »

If your textbook involves repeatedly democratically elected politicians being described as 'dictators'. The Venezualan presidency doesn't involve absolute power, and it's subject to an electoral mandate. Strangely the definition of a populist ticket is pretty much down to appealing to the electorate. You'll need to produce something scarier than popular policies to paint Chavez as a dictator. Sure Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected once, but they didn't hang on to any electoral mandate, and siezed absolute power - not until then were they dictators. Chavez mightn't be an entirely admirable character, but he remains in power on the basis of an electoral system that's open to anyone else who choses to campaign against him.

read my post

he removed the independent judiciary wing of the government (the judges) and replaced them with puppets appointed by him

Pro-Chavez lawmakers in recent years have stacked the Supreme Court with justices friendly to the government.
Last week, Supreme Court president Luisa Estela Morales said Venezuela has moved away from "a rigid separation of powers" toward a system characterized by "intense coordination" between the branches of government.
Chavez, who was in the audience, said Morales was right that "the separation of powers weakens the state."

he consolidated power and rigged elections

in 2002 he fired everyone from the state oil company who went on strike who didnt support him

in 2003 1 million signatures were collected to call for a referendum on whether he should remain in power, he called it "invalid"

in 2004 this increased to 3.5 million signature, with the vote being rigged

in 2007 he was given rule by decree

in 2009 the opposition were banned from running in elections by his appointed judges

Several senior opposition figures have been banned from standing for office by the government-controlled judiciary.

but lets ignore all that, seems some posters here have a romantic vision of a popular socialist revolutionary, a robin hood, a man of the people

very naive to believe that this guy is anything but a dictator (even the people think that now), and one who learned from his predecessors

anyone who says that he can be beaten in an election ignores the fact that he and his judges write the rules, and opposition is crushed and banned from running in elections

but once again lets ignore that little blip, hes a revolutionary after all

alastair

ei.sdraob wrote: »

read my post

he removed the independent judiciary wing of the government (the judges) and replaced them with puppets appointed by him

He has the power - the same as any previous president, to appoint judges - and even if he appointed puppets, they can't stop people voting against Chavez.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

he consolidated power and rigged elections

He certainly consolidated power, but there's no proof that he rigged elections.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

in 2002 he fired everyone from the state oil company who went on strike who didnt support him

in 2003 1 million signatures were collected to call for a referendum on whether he should remain in power, he called it "invalid"

The oil company jobs are something of a red herring - there's 28 million people in Venezuela - firing state oil employees who are trying to overthrow the government isn't exactly surprising.

The 2003 referendum attempt wasn't stymied by Chavez - it fell foul of existing rules that stipulated the period needed before such a poll was valid.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

in 2004 this increased to 3.5 million signature, with the vote being rigged

No argument that 3.5 mil voted against Chavez, but you neglect to mention that 4.9 mil voted in support of him. And the poll was declared sound by the usual independent electoral observer groups.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

in 2007 he was given rule by decree

Yes he was - as the constitution allowed, and that ended in July 2008.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

in 2009 the opposition were banned from running in elections by his appointed judges in 2009 the but lets ignore all that,

Anyone under criminal investigation was banned from running for election, but there was no shortage of oppposition candidates. Chavez won the election in a fair basis - as judged by EU electoral obsevers etc.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

seems some posters here have a romantic vision of a popular socialist revolutionary, a robin hood, a man of the people

I happen to think the man's an arse, but he's no dictator. He has an undenialble electoral mandate.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

very naive to believe that this guy is anything but a dictator (even the people think that now), and one who learned from his predecessors

anyone who says that he can be beaten in an election ignores the fact that he and his judges write the rules, and opposition is crushed and banned from running in elections

but once again lets ignore that little blip, hes a revolutionary after all

ei.sdraob

@alastair

you just waved away the fact that

he appointed own judges, removing independence from the judicial wing
and then he used same judges to rule in his favor time and time again

preventing free and fair elections from happening

but thats ok, hes a good man right? he can do whatever he pleases :rolleyes:

alastair wrote:

He has an undenialble electoral mandate.

when your opposition are jailed, or under investigation by your corrupt judges
thats not hard to achive no?


anyways enough arguing, lets see how the socialist paradise ends up in a decade, time and time again in the history of this world they endup in spectacular failures

heres a quote for you to tinker over

David Lloyd George (British Prime Minister. 1863-1945) wrote:

A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.

and finally another thing that no one mentioned in the context of this thread, is that their currency is not free floating and is still pegged to the dollar, this devaluation changes the exchange rate lower

they have the highest inflation rate in South America running at 25% this event will add another 5% to it or so making the people even poorer, the economy contracted this year despite Chavez claiming that "not a hair will be touched on our socialist economy" a year ago

alastair

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@alastair

you just waved away the fact that

he appointed own judges, removing independence from the judicial wing
and then he used same judges to rule in his favor time and time again

preventing free and fair elections from happening

but thats ok, hes a good man right? he can do whatever he pleases :rolleyes:



when your opposition are jailed, or under investigation by your corrupt judges
thats not hard to achive no?

The various elections have been declared free and fair by observers whose judgement I'd put more faith in than any blog pundit. Some opposition figures who might have been candidates are banned from running on the basis of corruption charges. Many more are free to compete and do so - there's a clear opposition in Venezeula, but they have an insufficient electoral mandate to oust Chavez. You might not like that fact, but a fact it is.

alastair

ei.sdraob wrote: »

anyways enough arguing, lets see how the socialist paradise ends up in a decade, time and time again in the history of this world they endup in spectacular failures

Tell that to the Swedes.

ei.sdraob

alastair wrote: »

The various elections have been declared free and fair by observers whose judgement I'd put more faith in than any blog pundit. Some opposition figures who might have been candidates are banned from running on the basis of corruption charges. Many more are free to compete and do so - there's a clear opposition in Venezeula, but they have an insufficient electoral mandate to oust Chavez. You might not like that fact, but a fact it is.

you can not have a successful opposition when the judicial and executive wings of governments are one and the same

im surprised that i have to spell that out to anyone

alastair wrote: »

Tell that to the Swedes.

are judicial and executive wings in Sweden run by same man?
did the Swedish ever confiscate land from some and gave it away to others?
did Sweden ever privatize huge chunks of the industry?


/

sceptre

ei.sdraob wrote: »

heres a quote for you to tinker over

David Lloyd George (British Prime Minister. 1863-1945) wrote:

A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.

You might want to check the provenance of that quote:) It's one of the most misquoted and misattributed quotes of the past 200 years. I've mentioned that before on this forum (I believe 33 days ago was the last time I did).

The actual quote is: "N'être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête." ("Not to be a republican [1] at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head") It's by François Guizot (who died in 1874 when Lloyd-George was 11) and there's no evidence that Lloyd George, just like Churchill, GB Shaw and almost everyone else since who's supposed to have done a version or variant on it to be a convenient bulwark for socialists, liberals, conservatives or republicans when they're searching for a quote to back them up.

Famous quotes, even when correctly attributed, are not necessarily the best basis for discussion. "Why?" is often a perfectly valid response. Quite frequently they fail to stand on their own merits. For this one, well, depends on the view of the person writing it or reading it. On its own, it's worth very little. Added to a coherent case, it adds very little.

[1] Small 'r' republican. Of the French kind. Obviously:)

alastair

Lloyd-George was 11 in 1974?!

Anyway - I think we can all agree that Sweden is no basket case, so some flavours of socialism clearly have merit, regardless of François Guizot's, or Churchill's, or Lloyd-George's personal opinions.

SLUSK

alastair wrote: »

Lloyd-George was 11 in 1974?!

Anyway - I think we can all agree that Sweden is no basket case, so some flavours of socialism clearly have merit, regardless of François Guizot's, or Churchill's, or Lloyd-George's perdonal opinions.

Sweden has a very regulated job market and the unemployment is what I would say chronically high. Me as a Swedish person has a far easier time getting a job in Ireland than in Sweden.

High taxes also make Swedish people fairly poor, they do not have much money in their bank accounts and many would have trouble getting €2000 if some sort of emergency happened.

Joycey

SLUSK wrote: »

High taxes also make Swedish people fairly poor, they do not have much money in their bank accounts and many would have trouble getting €2000 if some sort of emergency happened.

But then again they have welfare, healthcare, education, after school care etc provided free out of their taxes.

Id imagine there are plenty of Irish families who would similarly have trouble raising 2K for themselves at the moment.

alastair

SLUSK wrote: »

Sweden has a very regulated job market and the unemployment is what I would say chronically high. Me as a Swedish person has a far easier time getting a job in Ireland than in Sweden.

Unemployment figures at present: Ireland 12.5%, Sweden 8.9%. Not good news here or there, but the figures seem to run counter to your experience.

johnathan woss

alastair wrote: »

The various elections have been declared free and fair by observers whose judgement I'd put more faith in than any blog pundit. Some opposition figures who might have been candidates are banned from running on the basis of corruption charges. Many more are free to compete and do so - there's a clear opposition in Venezeula, but they have an insufficient electoral mandate to oust Chavez. You might not like that fact, but a fact it is.

A hypothetical question:
Is it free and fair if a leader uses the state's money (oil revenues) to essentially bribe vast swathes of the country to vote for him ?


Are there any statisitics on Chavez's level of support among different demographics ?

ei.sdraob

johnathan woss wrote: »

A hypothetical question:
Is it free and fair if a leader uses the state's money (oil revenues) to essentially bribe vast swathes of the country to vote for him ?

bribing vast swathes of the country to vote in a particular manner has worked out great in this country too

Joycey wrote: »

But then again they have welfare, healthcare, education, after school care etc provided free out of their taxes.

Id imagine there are plenty of Irish families who would similarly have trouble raising 2K for themselves at the moment.

once again Sweden has separation between the executive and the legislative branches and their economic policies of late are all about deregulation and de-privatization
quite the opposite of Venezuela

johnathan woss wrote: »

Are there any statisitics on Chavez's level of support among different demographics ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_presidential_election,_2006

Also, by comparing the official population numbers provided with by the Office of National Statistics with the CNE registry, there seems to be more register voters of 45 years of age and over than actual population

you somehow have more people voting than the size of the population...

and the electoral register grew rather quickly...

In June 2006, a privately funded preliminary study by Genaro Mosquera, a statistics professor at the Central University and member of the political party Democratic Action,[82] claimed that in the last three years the registry grew 27% compare to a population growth of only 7.3% during those years and also a much larger growth than the regular increasse of the registry of 12% every five years between 1948 and 2000.

/

Joey the lips

Its a total farce to quote american sources namely wiki when trying to nock chervez. Reason being he is everything america despises.

On a plus note his ideas on oil distrabution are brilliant. He has also guaranteed Cuba so many barrels of oil a year effectively giving them a barginning tool against american sanctions.

In fact he seems to hate everything american. Something I dont really care about but its interesting considering the amount or more importantly the value of imports the us takes in from venezuela 51 billion last year. 16% of what is exported is manufactured

I imagine this move will make the revenue generated from oil a lot more valuable and although chervez says it a lot harder to move away from it.

ei.sdraob

how would it make oil revenue more valuable? petroleum as before is still bought & sold in dollars (there and all over the world)

and their currency is still pegged to the dollar (at a different rate now)

if you think hes doing all of this out of the goodness of his heart and the love of his country, then i dont know what to say

Joey the lips

ei.sdraob wrote: »

how would it make oil revenue more valuable? petroleum as before is still bought & sold in dollars (there and all over the world)

and their currency is still pegged to the dollar (at a different rate now)

if you think hes doing all of this out of the goodness of his heart and the love of his country, then i dont know what to say

At a less rate yes. You will get more when you exchange the venezuelan currancy no! I think he is doing it for the greater good of his people. Can you show that he is not.

Like i said earlier what david mc williams proposes us to do is a simular tactic. De value or currancy to make us more competitive on exports....

ei.sdraob

Joey the lips wrote: »

At a less rate yes. You will get more when you exchange the venezuelan currancy no! I think he is doing it for the greater good of his people. Can you show that he is not.

you get more what exactly? bananas??

Joey the lips wrote: »

Like i said earlier what david mc williams proposes us to do is a simular tactic. De value or currancy to make us more competitive on exports....

i guessed you missed the whole part about their currency still being directly linked to and pegged against the dollar, or the multiple threads on the subject for that matter

Joey the lips

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you get more what exactly? bananas??




i guessed you missed the whole part about their currency still being directly linked to and pegged against the dollar, or the multiple threads on the subject for that matter

He is not finished yet.... All that will change.

ei.sdraob

Joey the lips wrote: »

He is not finished yet.... All that will change.

change... where have i heard that one before




image source: cubaweb.cu

Rebelheart

ei.sdraob wrote: »

@alastair

you just waved away the fact that

he appointed own judges, removing independence from the judicial wing

Yeah, thanks be to Jaysas that Irish judges are not not not appointed by the ruling party.

Next time you visit Ireland, let us show you around.

In the interim:

http://www.google.ie/#hl=ga&q=Judges+appointed+government&meta=cr%3DcountryIE&fp=3a2f2eca357d5e06

chevy

I was under the impression that they would effectively get twice as much for their oil now that they devalued.

Rebelheart

sceptre wrote: »

The actual quote is: "N'être pas républicain à vingt ans est preuve d'un manque de cœur; l'être après trente ans est preuve d'un manque de tête." ("Not to be a republican [1] at 20 is proof of want of heart; to be one at 30 is proof of want of head") It's by François Guizot (who died in 1874 when Lloyd-George was 11) and there's no evidence that Lloyd George, just like Churchill, GB Shaw and almost everyone else since who's supposed to have done a version or variant on it to be a convenient bulwark for socialists, liberals, conservatives or republicans when they're searching for a quote to back them up.

As a general rule, I don't like to say nice things to people who happen to have a bit of power as mods, but in this case I've learnt something which I deem to be valuable so thanks, Sceptre.