Venezuela devaluates its currency

meditraitor

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well, there was a run on the shops this weekend, and now the Venezuelan government has begun closing shops that engage in "price speculation". And today, El Pais (which is a left-wing newspaper) reported that the bolivar, Venezuela's currency, has lost almost 90% of its value since Chavez has taken office...and Venezuela imports 80% of what it consumes. Yikes.

Sorry the links are all in Spanish, but there seems to be some skepticism on the thread (some of it deserved) towards using American/British news sources for info about Venezuela (and the Spanish papers have more Latin American coverage).

Why not post something from papers which have not been continually critised by the Venesuela. I would put El Pais right up there with the IAPA in terms of the way they are potraying any socialist based countries in S America, these are transnational mouthpieces and not very reliable or accurate sources.

Heres the story without any sensationalism, read it
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5057

Caracas, January 8, 2009 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced a devaluation of the official exchange rate of the bolivar currency and the creation of a second rate denominated the “oil bolivar” for non-essential imports, in a nationally televised address on Friday.

The bolivar would be devalued from 2.15 per dollar to 2.6 per dollar, Chavez said, while the “oil bolivar” will be pegged at 4.3 per dollar. The measure represents a 17 percent and 50 percent devaluation respectively.

The Venezuelan government moved to regulate foreign currency exchange in 2003 after a two month long bosses lockout in the oil industry aimed at ousting the democratically elected Chavez from power caused an estimated $20 billion damage to the economy. The latest devaluation is the first since an 11 percent devaluation in March 2005.

The Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV) will also intervene directly into the unofficial dollar market where the bolivar is currently trading at approximately one-third the official rate in order to check capital flight, “This is a very firm resolution, the sectors that move in this economic ambit are well aware what I am referring to,” Chavez said.

The devaluation is aimed at revitalising the economy and strengthening national development after the country experienced a 2.9% contraction in 2009 due predominantly to lower oil prices resulting from the global economic crisis, he explained.

“This is to boost the productive economy, to reduce unnecessary imports and at the same time to stimulate exports,” he said, “We have to leave behind the oil rent model.”

The 2.6 rate will apply to imports from priority areas such as food, health, machinery and equipment, science and technology, books and education items as well as imports for the public sector, family remittances, Venezuelan exchange students, accredited consuls and embassies in Venezuelan territory, and pensions in some special cases.

The second rate will be applied to imports for the automotive, trade, telecommunications, chemicals, metallurgy, computing, and construction sectors as well as rubber and plastics, electrical appliances, textiles, electrical services, electronics, graphics, tobacco and alcoholic beverages, among others.

Economist Orlando Ochoa, from the Andrés Bello Catholic University told El Universal that in particular the state-owned oil company PDVSA and the basic industries grouped in the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (CVG) would benefit from the measure because “they are going to import the inputs they need to produce at 2.6, but they will receive 4.3 for their exports. This gives them a huge break.”

Venezuela—the largest oil producer in South America, whose income from oil accounts for approximately half the country’s GDP and ninety percent of exports—experiences an economic phenomenon known as “Dutch Disease” where high oil revenues act as a disincentive for domestic investment and production in other sectors making the country heavily reliant on imports.

The devaluation will boost the government’s spending power, as it will receive double the amount of bolivars per dollar from oil exports. However, it will also affect the general population by increasing the cost of imported goods in the country where inflation reached 25.1 percent in 2009.

In order to offset the impacts of inflation the government maintains price controls on a range basic food items including meat, bread, milk and coffee among other things, as well as a network of subsidised supermarkets, and free health and education services. However, a heavily subsidised petrol [gasoline] price of approximately five cents per litre is viewed as unsustainable by many analysts.

Further economic measures are expected in the coming days, it is possible that Chavez could announce further subsidies.

During his address to the nation the president argued that the economy should be at the service of humanity and therefore socialism.

“Economics is a social science in the service of human development (...) In capitalism the economy is in the service of bourgeois elites, which through their neo-liberal capitalist laws and constitutions, institutions, place it at the service of a minority and it becomes a source of exploitation of the majority.”

“Venezuela is an example of this: in the 20th century, despite the oil wealth, we ended the century with more than half of the population living in poverty and misery,” he recalled.

He compared this situation with the past 10 years, during which the Bolivarian Revolution has dramatically decreased unemployment and poverty, and free health and education programs have considerably improved the life of the country’s poor majority as noted by the United Nations Human Development Index.

“We'll do everything so that this global crisis does not affect Venezuela,” he said, recalling that in 2009, while the economies of northern Europe and the U.S. lost millions of jobs, in Venezuela the unemployment rate remained stable at around 7 percent.

ei.sdraob

Joey the lips wrote: »

pointless quotation. Personally i have no problem with sources in english once they are raliable but frankly some of the sources quoted on here are the tabloid equiv of quoteing the sun when you want to talk about jordan.

I think the real question is what does it import compared to before chavez was in power. This is his goal in office ie to reduce imports.

:rolleyes:

is that your answer for everything? the local and international media are somehow biases against your beloved Chavez??


the BBC, the Guardian, AP and WSJ are tabloid "CIA controlled" trash??

:cool:

---

oh i forgot

Joey the lips wrote: »

but socialism and money dont really mix.

---

and your tinfoilhat reply

Joey the lips wrote: »

I still like the man I always will unless you can prove without useing links provided by the cia why I should not.

and my answer

ei.sdraob wrote: »

yeh :rolleyes:

the Guardian (a leftie newspaper), BBC,AP/Google, Human Rights Watch Organization,WSJ are all CIA controlled?


"i see"

sarcasm++

SLUSK

Socialism leads to scarcity and often starvation. If you are a socialist and vote for Chavez you are getting what you deserve soon enough.

Joey the lips

meditraitor wrote: »

Why not post something from papers which have not been continually critised by the Venesuela. I would put El Pais right up there with the IAPA in terms of the way they are potraying any socialist based countries in S America, these are transnational mouthpieces and not very reliable or accurate sources.

Heres the story without any sensationalism, read it
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5057

ei.sdraob wrote: »

:rolleyes:

is that your answer for everything? the local and international media are somehow biases against your beloved Chavez??


the BBC, the Guardian, AP and WSJ are tabloid "CIA controlled" trash??

:cool:

---

oh i forgot

---

and your tinfoilhat reply




and my answer

Your sarcasim is noted. Thank you meditraitor that puts my mind at ease. Time will indeed tell.

southsiderosie

meditraitor wrote: »

Why not post something from papers which have not been continually critised by the Venesuela. I would put El Pais right up there with the IAPA in terms of the way they are potraying any socialist based countries in S America, these are transnational mouthpieces and not very reliable or accurate sources.

Heres the story without any sensationalism, read it
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5057

I would not consider any website that only interviews government officials and sympathizers, and who make no bones about being ideologically in bed with the regime to be a credible, independent source of information. They are a source of information from those that support the regime, and I would look to them for a pro-Chavez opinion on something, but looking here for even-handed information about Venezuela is like looking to the Wall Street Journal editorial page for an unbiased analysis of Goldman Sachs.

While I take what I read in large newspapers with a honking rock of salt, considering that El Pais is consistently accused of being "red" and overly favorable to the socialist government, the fact that they are taking a similar approach to covering the current situation in Venezuela as their more conservative counterpart enhances the credibility of the reporting in this case.

ei.sdraob

meditraitor wrote: »

Why not post something from papers which have not been continually critised by the Venesuela. I would put El Pais right up there with the IAPA in terms of the way they are potraying any socialist based countries in S America, these are transnational mouthpieces and not very reliable or accurate sources.

i put up a link earlier to the Guardian

the same newspaper that pampers to socialists and is very "leftie"

a newspaper usually singing praises for Chavez (notice article is from 2006 and since he did arrest and jail people since for no reason other than please himself, see below)


here they are criticizing him for jailing a judge because he didnt like how a sentence was carried out


hell i even put up a link earlier to a book published by Human Rights Watch Organisation which is very critical of mr himself

but of course its all biased and CIA controlled media for some :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your sarcasim is noted. Thank you meditraitor that puts my mind at ease. Time will indeed tell.

oh time will tell, history has shown how over and over how incredibly corrupt and perverted "socialist" dictatorships are

oh and since were talking about bias in media

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/sep/08/press-freedom-venezuela

Last month, the government closed 32 radio stations and two small television stations.

Telecommunications commission president Diosdado Cabello said last week that an additional 29 radio stations "will soon leave" the airwaves, adding: "We are acting within the law."

yet another dictator trait is destroying free media and controlling what remains, remember that he writes the laws, appoints all judges, and jails any of them that judge against his will

but lets just bury out heads in sand, hes a revolutionary after all, a man of our times

meditraitor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

oh time will tell, history has shown how over and over how incredibly corrupt and perverted "socialist" dictatorships are

oh and since were talking about bias in media

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/sep/08/press-freedom-venezuela



yet another dictator trait is destroying free media and controlling what remains, remember that he writes the laws, appoints all judges, and jails any of them that judge against his will

but lets just bury out heads in sand, hes a revolutionary after all, a man of our times

Thats unusually short sited for you ei.sdroab!

You are saying that because some before have fallen to the yoke of capitalism and raped their countries that chavez will...... your very easily led by transnationistic media unhappy with the idea that a country takes back its own resources for the good of its citizens must be run by a dictator.


There are many articles online that counter the judges dismissal with fair venesuela based analysis of the decision, decisions based mainly on corruption and incompetence.
Chavez has not committed any crimes according to the Constituion of Venesuela
http://www.analitica.com/bitblioteca/venezuela/constitucion_ingles.pdf

You might do your self a favour and read it, look at what it says and if you can see were it says that incompetent and corrupt officials cannot be sacked please point it out

For anyone with a fair and less media led mind I will point to the real reason the media(who are owned by capitalist transnational companies with alterior motives) are continually attacking Chavez. This is Article 12 of the constitution and this is reason for the venom and false reporting you will find all over the western world.

This constituion was written in 1999 by a democratically elected government.

Article 12: Mineral and hydrocarbon deposits of any nature that
exist within the territory of the nation, beneath the territorial sea bed,
within the exclusive economic zone and on the continental sheaf, are
the property of the Republic, are of public domain, and therefore
inalienable and not transferable. The seacoasts are public domain
property.

And as for quoting the BBC ei,sdroab
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5003

Researchers at the University of the West of England, UK, have exposed ongoing and systematic bias in the BBC’s news reporting on Venezuela. Dr Lee Salter and Dr Dave Weltman analysed ten years of BBC reports on Venezuela since the first election of Hugo Chavez to the presidency in an ongoing research project, and their findings so far show that the BBC’s reporting falls short of its legal commitment to impartiality, truth and accuracy.

The researchers looked at 304 BBC reports published between 1998 and 2008 and found that only 3 of those articles mentioned any of the positive policies introduced by the Chavez administration. The BBC has failed to report adequately on any of the democratic initiatives, human rights legislation, food programmes, healthcare initiatives, or poverty reduction programmes. Mission Robinson, the greatest literacy programme in human history received only a passing mention.

According to the research the BBC seems never to have accepted the legitimacy of the President, insinuating throughout the sample that Chavez lacks electoral support, at one point comparing him to Hitler (‘Venezuela’s Dictatorship’ 31/08/99).

This undermining of Chavez must be understood in the context of his electoral record: his legitimacy is questioned despite the fact that he has been elected several times with between 56% and 60% of the vote. In contrast victorious parties in UK elections since 1979 have achieved between 35.3% and 43.9% of the vote; the current UK Prime Minister was appointed by his predecessor, and many senior members of the British cabinet have never been elected. It will come as no surprise that their legitimacy is never questioned by the BBC.

Of particular note is the BBC’s response to the military coup in 2002. BBC News published nine articles on the coup on 12th April 2002, all of which were based on the coup leaders’ version of events, who were, alongside the “opposition”, championed as saviours of “the nation”. Although BBC News did report the coup, the only time it mentioned the word “coup” was as an allegation of government officials and of Chavez’s daughter.

The “official” BBC explanation was that Chavez ‘fell’, ‘quit’, or ‘resigned’ (at best at the behest of the military) after his ‘mishandling’ of “strikes” (which, as Hardy [2007] reminds us, were actually management lockouts) and demonstrations in which his supporters had fired on and killed protestors. In reporting this latter, Adam Easton, the BBC’s correspondent in Caracas wrote ‘Film footage also caught armed supporters of Mr Chavez firing indiscriminately at the marchers’ (‘Venezuela’s New Dawn’). The footage in question was broadcast by an oligarch’s channel that had supported the coup and was shown to have been manipulated.

Given that Chavez had won two elections and a constitutional referendum before the coup, it is surprising that the BBC privileged the coup leaders’ version of events. The democratic, restorative intentions of the coup leaders were unquestioned.

In ‘Venezuelan media: “It's over!”’ the BBC allows the editor of El Universal to declare unopposed "We have returned once again to democracy!". Perhaps more significantly, in ‘Venezuela's political disarray’ the BBC’s Americas regional editor chose to title a subheading ‘Restoring democracy’. ‘Oil prices fall as Chavez quits’ explains that Chavez quit as a result of a ‘popular uprising’.

Crucially, all of the vox pops used in the nine articles were from “opposition” supporters, and the only voices in support of Chavez were from government officials, Chavez’s daughter or Cuba. It is therefore reasonable to infer from BBC reports that ordinary Venezuelans did not support Chavez; whilst the coup was inaccurately reported as ‘popular’, the counter coup was not.

The researchers hypothesised that one of the factors underpinning the inaccurate reporting of Venezuela was the BBC’s adherence to the ideological outlook of the Venezuelan elite. Against the weight of historical research into Venezuelan history, the BBC underpins its reporting with the “exceptionalism thesis” – the idea that Venezuela was the exception among Latin American nations in that its democracy was robust enough to resist dictatorship.

However, historical research suggests this idea is wrong. As Professors Ellner and Salas explain, those who referred to the exceptionalism of Venezuela,

Failed … to draw the connection between political exclusion and the related phenomena of clientelism, on one hand, and the violation of human rights, electoral manipulation, and corruption, on the other. Indeed, they took the legitimacy of the institutional mechanisms that guaranteed stability for granted. The same defects of electoral fraud, corruption, and repression that scholars pointed to as contributing to the crisis of the 1990s had been apparent in previous decades

Certainly the BBC fails to recognise this, and its ignorance of the extreme poverty afflicting so many Venezuelans mitigates against any adequate of understanding of Venezuelan politics. Because the BBC cannot “see” these factors, the Bolivarian Revolution cannot be understood as a response to decades of poverty and oppression.

Rather, the BBC personalises the Bolivarian movement in Hugo Chavez, himself emerging from nowhere and then imposing himself on Venezuela, as if there was no movement, and as if no elections took place.

For example, the 2004 referendum victory is referred to as ‘an extraordinary turn around, and one that defies easy explanation’ (‘Analysis: Venezuela at the Crossroads’ 17/8/04). Of course, the victory appeared “extraordinary” only to persons ignorant of the underlying issues affecting Venezuelan politics.

Consequently, Chavez himself becomes the cause of political conflict. In the world of the BBC it is impossible for class, poverty, human rights abuse or corruption to cause political conflict – the BBC cannot understand the impact of a poverty rate of 70% in 1995 or the fact that a year before Chavez’s first election victory 67% of Venezuelans earned less than $2 a day.

Rather, Venezuelans are painted as mindless sheep being led by a Pied Piper figure, responding only to his call for them to agitate. In the BBC’s world, social and political “divisions” exist only because of Chavez.

For the BBC, the only legitimate representatives of Venezuelan appear to be the unelected oligarchs behind the “opposition”. It is the “opposition” that is Venezuela. ‘Opposition leaders in Venezuela’, according to the BBC, appeal ‘to the international community to intervene to protect democratic rule’.

When democracy was “restored” by a military coup and the imposition of a dictator, the BBC reported that “Venezuela has looked not to an existing politician, but to the head of the business leaders’ association”. When a majority of Venezuelans elect Chavez it is not an act of “Venezuela”, yet when a CIA-backed military coup imposes a corrupt oligarchy, it reflects the will of the whole of Venezuela; not the will of an elite class, but of Venezuela itself.

There is an argument that the inaccuracy and bias of the BBC’s reporting results from the experience of BBC journalists, themselves being from a particular class background living in well-to-do parts of Caracas. From this point of view, they simply don’t see the reality of the situation. If so, it would confirm Charles Hardy’s claim that, we tend to be given ‘the perspective of an international correspondent… who works in a downtown office building of an opposition newspaper and lives in an apartment in a wealthy neighborhood’.

The big question, however, is whether the BBC can be trusted to report adequately on Latin America. Certainly from their latest reports on Evo Morales’s recent victory in Bolivia it seems unlikely. In the meantime, their audience remains woefully ill-informed.

ei.sdraob

meditraitor wrote: »

Thats unusually short sited for you ei.sdroab!

short sighted? not at all history has a funny way of repeating itself

meditraitor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

short sighted? not at all history has a funny way of repeating itself

Have a little faith brother.... someday someone has to get it right

Joey the lips

SLUSK wrote: »

Socialism leads to scarcity and often starvation. If you are a socialist and vote for Chavez you are getting what you deserve soon enough.

Thats not true....It can easilily be argued that the capitalist squeeze on socialism leads to starvation. Look at india the biggest population in the world. Abondoned the policies long ago of ghandi whats it gotten them...Nothing.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

short sighted? not at all history has a funny way of repeating itself

Yes it does..Like geoge bush and george bush junior. Amazing how for someone so religious their attitude and south american policy never changed. Its this type of attitude that has us believeing that columbia cannot be stopped and there neighbours venezuela is wrong.

southsiderosie

meditraitor wrote: »

This constituion was written in 1999 by a democratically elected government.

Article 12: Mineral and hydrocarbon deposits of any nature that
exist within the territory of the nation, beneath the territorial sea bed,
within the exclusive economic zone and on the continental sheaf, are
the property of the Republic, are of public domain, and therefore
inalienable and not transferable. The seacoasts are public domain
property.

Like Venezuela, Mexico's constitution restricts foreign ownership of oil production, and it is political suicide for Mexican politicians to suggest that foreign companies invest in oil. Also like Venezuela, the Mexican government uses oil revenues as a limitless piggy bank for social programs and other political payoffs. Well unfortunately, after seventy years of this, today Mexico is running out of oil, the state-owned oil company PEMEX doesn't have the technical capacity to look for deep-water wells, and the government won't allow foreign investment that could potentially increase production. In the meantime, remittances from Mexicans working in the US are poised to take over oil revenues as a source of hard currency - another strategy that should not be counted on for the long term, given the economic and political situation north of the border.

I agree with Manic Moran's earlier point: simply using oil revenue for food subsidies and direct social spending may boost social statistics in the short run, but may not be the best over the long run. A government can own its own energy resources and not piss them away. Yet people constantly applaud Venezuela's policies because of his anti-capitalism and/or his anti-Americanism. What about applauding policies that actually work, regardless of their "ism"? Every other country in the region that had gone down Venezuela's path has ended up in disaster: either some form of dictatorship (from the left or the right) or a painful economic collapse...or both.

meditraitor

southsiderosie wrote: »

Like Venezuela, Mexico's constitution restricts foreign ownership of oil production, and it is political suicide for Mexican politicians to suggest that foreign companies invest in oil. Also like Venezuela, the Mexican government uses oil revenues as a limitless piggy bank for social programs and other political payoffs. Well unfortunately, after seventy years of this, today Mexico is running out of oil, the state-owned oil company PEMEX doesn't have the technical capacity to look for deep-water wells, and the government won't allow foreign investment that could potentially increase production. In the meantime, remittances from Mexicans working in the US are poised to take over oil revenues as a source of hard currency - another strategy that should not be counted on for the long term, given the economic and political situation north of the border.

I agree with Manic Moran's earlier point: simply using oil revenue for food subsidies and direct social spending may boost social statistics in the short run, but may not be the best over the long run. A government can own its own energy resources and not piss them away. Yet people constantly applaud Venezuela's policies because of his anti-capitalism and/or his anti-Americanism. What about applauding policies that actually work, regardless of their "ism"? Every other country in the region that had gone down Venezuela's path has ended up in disaster: either some form of dictatorship (from the left or the right) or a painful economic collapse...or both.

Your comparing apples with monkeys here , the oil reserves in venesuela at present capacity and pumping rates will last for 88 years


Mexico will only have reserves for another 9,

southsiderosie

meditraitor wrote: »

Your comparing apples with monkeys here , the oil reserves in venesuela at present capacity and pumping rates will last for 88 years


Mexico will only have reserves for another 9,

No, that's exactly my point: Mexico did 70 years ago what Venezuela is doing now, and today the Mexicans have nothing to show for it. What was that Marx said about history repeating itself the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce...

RedPlanet

southsiderosie wrote: »

Every other country in the region that had gone down Venezuela's path has ended up in disaster: either some form of dictatorship (from the left or the right) or a painful economic collapse...or both.

Yeah, albeit with a heavy dose of American meddling!

Joey the lips

RedPlanet wrote: »

Yeah, albeit with a heavy dose of American meddling!

Peru being the best example of that one...

fontinalis

meditraitor wrote: »

Have a little faith brother.... someday someone has to get it right

Stalin, Castro (with the appointment of the younger brother I suppose they are a monarchy), Chavez. Enough misery for you?

meditraitor

fontinalis wrote: »

Stalin, Castro (with the appointment of the younger brother I suppose they are a monarchy), Chavez. Enough misery for you?

What has Stalin got to do with Chavez?

Do you even know who Stalin is?

meditraitor

southsiderosie wrote: »

No, that's exactly my point: Mexico did 70 years ago what Venezuela is doing now, and today the Mexicans have nothing to show for it. What was that Marx said about history repeating itself the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce...

Thats not a good point, it makes no sense to conclude that were one man failed another will also fail.

Mexico 70 years ago? Mexico was never in the position Venesuela is to paddle its own canoe.

Joey the lips

fontinalis wrote: »

Stalin, Castro (with the appointment of the younger brother I suppose they are a monarchy), Chavez. Enough misery for you?

George bush maggie thatcher bertie ahern. Tyrants in there own right whats your point. leaders seperated by generations...

fontinalis

meditraitor wrote: »

What has Stalin got to do with Chavez?

Do you even know who Stalin is?

He's up in heaven with Bob Marley, fair enough it was a bit extreme, point being in a number years the Chavez Venezuela will be a basket case like the castro monarchy in Cuba.
I know South and central America has been messed over by right wing counterparts also but one messed up ideology/regime doesn't deserve another.

fontinalis

Joey the lips wrote: »

George bush maggie thatcher bertie ahern. Tyrants in there own right whats your point. leaders seperated by generations...

There's more Irish bars in London and Washington than caracas and Havana, don't see any mass emigration to those places but there's lots the other way. I don't/didn't support the people you mention but you defend people like Chavez so you're in no position to criticise.

RedPlanet

fontinalis wrote: »

There's more Irish bars in London and Washington than caracas and Havana, don't see any mass emigration to those places but there's lots the other way.

You really like black n white and silly simplifications don't you?
Did you know that in recent times over 1 million people have immigrated to Jordan.

fontinalis

RedPlanet wrote: »

You really like black n white and silly simplifications don't you?
Did you know that in recent times over 1 million people have immigrated to Jordan.

Yes, I agree it's oversimplification but I know when at some point in the future when Chavez is assessed he will be seen to be an egotistical moron.
I don't agree with US meddling in any region but there's too much support given to regimes because their seen to be standing up to the US.
With regards to Cuba, one thing that is brought up about their economic fortune is the US embargo (the height of hypocrisy when you consider US brown nosing of Saudi Arabia), but Cuba can't sustain a decent economy.
My overall point, foreign meddling and right wing regimes can't be solved by far left regimes and supporting these far left regimes don't help matters.

Joey the lips

fontinalis wrote: »

Yes, I agree it's oversimplification but I know when at some point in the future when Chavez is assessed he will be seen to be an egotistical moron.
I don't agree with US meddling in any region but there's too much support given to regimes because their seen to be standing up to the US.
With regards to Cuba, one thing that is brought up about their economic fortune is the US embargo (the height of hypocrisy when you consider US brown nosing of Saudi Arabia), but Cuba can't sustain a decent economy.
My overall point, foreign meddling and right wing regimes can't be solved by far left regimes and supporting these far left regimes don't help matters.

Your theory is incorrect and china is a perfect example. A far left economy but mao not listening to the yanks and the west introduced his own ideals and principles. Personally I would rather see socialist principles than have us believe that mr computer created 2000 jobs in ireland because he loves the workers. Bull! He created them because he bullied the govt. Where as in socialist society they produce what they need.

fontinalis

Joey the lips wrote: »

Your theory is incorrect and china is a perfect example. A far left economy but mao not listening to the yanks and the west introduced his own ideals and principles. Personally I would rather see socialist principles than have us believe that mr computer created 2000 jobs in ireland because he loves the workers. Bull! He created them because he bullied the govt. Where as in socialist society they produce what they need.

Just don't produce 2 children in China. How many died under Mao?
Anyway, ciaosers, big river in Egypt and all that.

Joey the lips

fontinalis wrote: »

Just don't produce 2 children in China. How many died under Mao?
Anyway, ciaosers, big river in Egypt and all that.

Population is another issue. Its a perfect example of why your wrong and you know it. In fact its one of the few countries that tells america what to do.