Venezuela, Hugo Chavez

Elmo

1. When did Hugo Chavez get into power?
2. Should I trust Shell when they sign lovely contracts with Ray Bruke and Co.?

Thomond Pk

1998-9

Hugo has something very revealing; he like Rambo Burke are doing deals that have no benefit to their respective populations.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

That article proves my point on corruption he is squandering $5bn on current spending projects whilst getting foreign companies 'accused of tax evasion' to invest in the original source of the funds. The owners of the plant & equipment will be 'tax evaders' whilst the $5bn will have disappeared in to the air; most likely Panama which will take up all the existing Venezuelan corporate treasury business.

No it mentions an oil company withholding taxes. Your making the jump.

"Previous Government" were renowned for corruption. Companies which were happy screwing the country get caught.

Andy Webb is the FT correspondant for Venezuela who are probably the most left leaning financial/economic large scale news source in the World.

A single reporter source. That source normally should get their information from somewhere. Or do you take his word as gospel? Its the checking up the facts/accusations you are making I am having a problem finding. I am sure you checked back on the story (The first thing I do when I read a story is find as many variances of it to get a better picture).

I thought you weren't a moderator on this board?

I am not entirely sure what your point is.

Thomond Pk

Hobbes wrote:

No it mentions an oil company withholding taxes. Your making the jump.

There is no jump; the point of the article is that most oil companies are being 'accused of tax evasion' The only one with the scale to resist these probably totally spurious charges are Shell; who with a cleared pitch can do a deal with Hugo almost unopposed. A nice use of state muscle to create a private monopolistic position.

Hobbes wrote:

"Previous Government" were renowned for corruption. Companies which were happy screwing the country get caught.

Where is your data I have supplied rising poverty levels and 3 articles from the last two months.

Hobbes wrote:

A single reporter source. That source normally should get their information from somewhere. Or do you take his word as gospel? Its the checking up the facts/accusations you are making I am having a problem finding. I am sure you checked back on the story (The first thing I do when I read a story is find as many variances of it to get a better picture).

If you read the articles like all FT articles they contain many diverse sources; all of which are respected sources. On Latin American news they are beyond reproach; if not often the last to break the storey because they take the time to accurately verify their facts prior to release.

Hobbes wrote:

I am not entirely sure what your point is.

You were very to highlight 'violation(c)' I have posted on many boards and never had anyone edit or delete anything I have ever written.

gandalf

Actually Thomond Hobbes is well within his rights as a regular poster here to question your sources. Its even covered in the charter.

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

Don't expect to post here and people not to call your opinions to question.

Politics Posting Guidelines

Thomond Pk

I take what you say as a fair reflection of a good board policy.

However the articles that I posted were initially a direct weblink; which will be open for four days before becoming paid subscription access only. The subsequent articles were by the same author and were closed access. Each of these articles contained clarifications from a number of independent sources. Furthermore I supplied data from the Venezeulan Government that the poverty level has actually risen.

Whilst Hobbes has not supplied one source to back up any of his suppositions. I can only consider that he has lost perspective in his attempts to find flaws in my argument that Chavez is far from a positive influence on Venezuela.

He is a corrupt totalitarian dictator and as one signature on boards says the loonies from the left and right don't have far to travel to meet in effect.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

There is no jump; the point of the article is that most oil companies are being 'accused of tax evasion'

No that is not what is said at all (I have looked at other articles). The government is "Investigating all oil companies". Shell is one that has been evading tax and misreporting earnings. That was from a google of "chavez tax evasion oil companies".

About the only thing I could find in question is the state taking 51% of all forigen run oil businesses within the country.

However at the end of the day they have to agree to the laws to work in that country. Just like any business in Ireland that does business with another country has to obey laws. For example, you can't put "Taiwan" as country in any product document if you do business with China, you can't agree to an embargo or break an embargo in Ireland without the US permission if you do business in the US.*

I (personally) also don't take one site as gospel. If FT were to claim something I would check numerous other reports of the same instance to get a better understanding of the story.

Where is your data I have supplied rising poverty levels and 3 articles from the last two months.

You point me to a the front of website (which isn't in English, so navigation isn't as fast as I'd like it) and claim that is your source for these figures. Can you not link me directly to those figures?

You were very to highlight 'violation(c)' I have posted on many boards and never had anyone edit or delete anything I have ever written.

You didn't write it though. Someone else did. Generally your supposed to post a link to the source and "Fair Use" quote from it. At least one of those FT articles you pasted I got a message I would have to pay to view so (c) aside you could get boards into trouble for it.

Whilst Hobbes has not supplied one source to back up any of his suppositions.

Your the one making the accusations (beyond the stories you posted). I am asking you to show me where you are getting your information from. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you are not backing any of it up. I would like to read it.

I am reading general media/wiki resources to find information on him. It appears you have a better source then me so I'd like to see it.


* Just in case you think I am US bashing. I am not. These are just two countries I am moderatly familar in dealing with.

DadaKopf

He is a corrupt totalitarian dictator

I've seen this accusation bandied about by many people who don't like the guy. I haven't ever seen people who say this present any convincing argument that he's nearly this bad.

They also make the mistake (as do his supporters) of personifying Venezuela and its problems under Chavez's personality. When you say Chavez is "running the country into the ground", you seem to be implying that governance under the Pérez or Caldera governments were any better.

Basically, Venezuela's problems are connected with overwhelming constraints on all sides - systemic constraints - that transcend polarised Venezuelan politics as much as those constraints are defined by them. The prime constraint is political-economic inflexibility which has made it difficult for successive governments to reorient policy fast enough to achieve higher growth.

So if you want to popularise Chavez, go ahead. If you want to call him a "corrupt totalitarian dictator", please provide evidence - a litany of evidence, not just self-serving one-off soundbites.

Elmo

Is there any date for the rate of Proverty pre 1998 or did they just start to collect that information.

From the Documentry by RTE, I personnelly didn't warm to any of the rich in the Programme.

Certainly I did not like some of the comments coming from them like (and i paraphrase)

You should have to work to get where you are in the world and we have worked they haven't they deserve nothing.

IMO you have some responisablity to provide people with the resources to work.

IMO Shell are not a great company to support

However I cannot say that I know much about the suituation over their other then what I saw on the Documentry, and I don't see what the makers of that film have to gain by supporting Chavez.

From what I gathered

1. Chavez was democratically elected
2. The opposition/rich tryed to over throw him (while the Documentry did try to say that their was some US involvement, I cann't say they said anyhthing definate to support their claims but they told us that)
3. Chavez has provide education to many of the people of in his country.
4. The Private TV companies are Anti Chavez

If the Venezuelian people want Chavez then they can have Chavez its not up to us. Just as with Bush in the US.

I will be taking a closer look at Venezuela over the coming years.

I don't think I should trust Shell.

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

So if you want to popularise Chavez, go ahead. If you want to call him a "corrupt totalitarian dictator", please provide evidence - a litany of evidence, not just self-serving one-off soundbites.

Taking $5,000,000,000 out of Central Bank Reserves against professional advice; imposing govenment appointed board members on every private bank and imposing politically motivated tax charges on half the players in the largest industry that have the potential to drive half that industry out of the country whilst negotiating with one company under investigation for 'tax evasion' are merely symptomatic of Chavez's autocratic style.


This follows on from land seizures; the Parmalat collapse was also heavily linked to a Venezeulan take-over although the paper trail on that is not too clear yet as the parmalat investigations are in the early stages.

I am not taking sides in Venezuela politics the opposition are equally suspect and the Coup was disgraceful but to justify Chavez's actions because the others plotted a coup is ridiculous. It is also insulting to the countries in the region who have got it right; places like Chile and Uraguay and more laterly Argentina.

Chavez is an extremely destabilising influence on the region; having cut back on anti narco-terrorist programmes; been engaged in multiple diplomatic stand-offs with his closest neighbour and largest potential trading partner Colombia. There are strong suspicions that he was instrumental in the fall of Guterretz in Ecaudor and was very quick to use his financial muscle to enter the bond market in Ecaudor as soon as a new administration was secured there. He was instrumental in the fall of the government in Bolivia in June through his financing of the Coca growers leader Eva Morales.

Make no mistake Chavez has a much wider political agenda that extends far beyond the borders of his own juristiction. As a regular visitor to the region the opinions I am getting is that he is hated and feared in equal measure in all of the politically fragile states from Colombia to Bolivia and regarded as a comical figure in the more stable ones.

Elmo

I don't know is Colombia politcal stable, is the Colombian goverment a trust worthy government? (Please When i ask that i don't need as much of an igorant answer from either the PDs or the Sinn Feiners on boards).

again i think that over all I will have to look at south america in closer detail to comment.

He was instrumental in the fall of the government in Bolivia in June through his financing of the Coca growers leader Eva Morales.

Again not knowing the situation is Bolivia. Was he wrong to help Eva Morales? What was the Bolivian Government like?

Guterretz in Ecaudor

What was Guterretz like? was he a good leader? was he wrong to help in his fall?

Thomond Pk

Elmo wrote:

I don't know is Colombia politcal stable, is the Colombian goverment a trust worthy government? (Please When i ask that i don't need as much of an igorant answer from either the PDs or the Sinn Feiners on boards).

Colombia is extremely dysfunctional; the 3000 abductions a year has declined slightly; It is like a much more intense version of Northern Ireland in 1982-5; if you get stopped it could be the Police, Army, FARC (Provos) Right Wing Militias (UVF) or just general bandits.

The governemnt under Uribe could be regarded as Thatcherite in style in every way; although the security situation has improved they still only control about 70% of the country now.

Elmo wrote:

Again not knowing the situation is Bolivia. Was he wrong to help Eva Morales? What was the Bolivian Government like?

The last president was regarded as good; his approval ratings were over 60% before Morales started to stir the pot. It stemmed from Gas taxes which were agreed at 30%; morales & co wanted this upped to 60% retrospectively. Given the underdeveloped state of the industry such a move would starve the country of vital foreign investment in the energy sector. When the president refused to ratify the demand Morales shut the country down with a series of blockades.

Elmo wrote:

What was Guterretz like? was he a good leader? was he wrong to help in his fall?

Gueterretz was like Chavez a left leaning president who was elected on making promises to rural lobby groups. He had a good financial record and restructured much of the countries debt away from the Paris Club to IMF and quoted bonds. His fiscal rectitude was a good long term play and rising commodity prices kept the effects of fiscal discipline to a minimum.

DadaKopf

The governemnt under Uribe could be regarded as Thatcherite in style in every way; although the security situation has improved they still only control about 70% of the country now.

Although Thatcher was never part of one of the most powerful drugs cartels in Colombia. Uribe is part of the Medellin cartel, which Pablo Escobar led until his assassination. So if you consider the state, under the leadership of a drug baron, controlling 70% of the country is an improvement, fine. Sounds mad to me.

Colombia is fúcked.

Thomond, what would you like to see happen, policy-wise, in Venezuela? I don't mean it like, "Chavez should combat corruption", I mean longer-term stuff, endgames, that sort of thing.

Thomond Pk

I would like to see a National Development plan plot out their investment in

>1 Energy
>2 Transport
>3 Healthcare
>4 Education
>5 A pension fund
>6 Alternative Energy

Re: Colombia; it doesn't deserve to be called a country as Edith Bettencourt could testify if we ever get to see her again

DadaKopf

I would like to see a National Development plan plot out their investment in

>1 Energy
>2 Transport
>3 Healthcare
>4 Education
>5 A pension fund
>6 Alternative Energy

Yes, but, what policies would you like to see? You've missed out on some other important policy areas anyway.

Thomond Pk

I think in the case of Venezuela it is such a commodity rich country that the main policy must be to get the government revenue base into programmes that are visable. As the capital/infrastructural base is built employment levels will rise and services get better as well.

In relation to foreign policy it is simply a case of eliminating the rhetoric and re-aligning prime relationship status away from Cuba and towards other South American Countries such as Chile, Uraguay, Argentina and redefining the relationship with Brazil.

Regional development policy needs to be based on the adandonment of the 'Andena' block and entering of talks like Peru and Bolivia for membership of the Mercesor group.

Security needs to be based on strengthening domestic controls over narco-terrorists and not political rivals and foreign destabalisation in places like Ecaudor and Bolivia.

Judicial: needs to respect the independence of the judiciary

Economy: Shift the focus of spending from current to capital spending with a bias towards productive infrastructure. Plan for a less protective regime with full Mercesor membership the prime objective.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

I think in the case of Venezuela it is such a commodity rich country that the main policy must be to get the government revenue base into programmes that are visable. As the capital/infrastructural base is built employment levels will rise and services get better as well.

Prior to Chavez taking power (and the short time the coup lasted) the power/rich was held by a small percentage of the population. From what I can see Chavez is removing it from these people and spreading it around.

Even with Chavez in power still a lot of these are holding these powerbases. The police force is a good example.

He may not be doing it in a way that is making friends but that is what it appears to what I have seen (from reports/media).

As for security, bare in mind that some of his political rivals have threatend to kill him among with taking the country by force.

Thomond Pk

Hobbes wrote:

Prior to Chavez taking power (and the short time the coup lasted) the power/rich was held by a small percentage of the population. From what I can see Chavez is removing it from these people and spreading it around.

He is spreading a certain amount of it around, but there is no long term benefit to spreading money around with no return on the money. If the same money was put into capital projects it would stimulate the economy and have a similar effect on the same socio-economic groups through higher employment levels. The money that Chavewz is throwing around to his supporters will not last when commodity prices recede and then they really will have problems.

The fact that previous governments had an equally poor record in economic development is no excuse for financial recklessness. Just becuase the waste is being channelled to a larger group of cronies cannot justify stupidity.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

but there is no long term benefit to spreading money around with no return on the money.

Programs like Free Health care that was unknown prior to him being in power? Building free health care clinics?

Subsidized food stores that allow people to afford basic foodstuffs?

Programs to help increase literacy and basic education among the general population. (This has been applauded by all but those who oppose him).

Program to start small start-up businesses being created to create business.

Or the major importing of teachers from other countries to help with this?

Or land reforms to get people to farm/move out of the city. Despite the controversial provos in this (taking land from private owners who dispute or don't use it) they have not been enacted and currently only government land has been given.

From what I have seen so far he is increasing the quality of life for a lot of people and helping them become more functional to the running of the country.

Now if he was using the money to line his own pockets I'd love to see that story and I'm pretty sure the opposition would be jumping all over that story.

Elmo

>1 Energy
>2 Transport
>3 Healthcare
>4 Education
>5 A pension fund
>6 Alternative Energy

In that Order?

Also you will get a return from a well educated society. E.G. Ireland.

IMO: Money makes the world go round, people make money go round.

:. if people don't have money then money cannot be spent

DadaKopf

I think in the case of Venezuela it is such a commodity rich country that the main policy must be to get the government revenue base into programmes that are visable. As the capital/infrastructural base is built employment levels will rise and services get better as well.

If the same money was put into capital projects it would stimulate the economy and have a similar effect on the same socio-economic groups through higher employment levels.

Have you any evidence that this has been the case in Venezuela in the past, or that if doing this improved the economy for a time, that such a policy was sustainable and that wealth didn't accrue only to the better off? What do you define as capital projects? Roads, electricity, hospitals, schools, public transport, telecommunications, extraction plants and factories? There's more to development than boosting GDP figures - those can just mask suffering.

Anyway, there's evidence to show that poverty has been decreasing as a result of Chavez's Missions. They've also been empowering Venezuelans. According to one study, living standards of 83% of the population have improved by one-third between 2003 and 2004, after inflation is taken into account. The UN, and Chavez, realises health and education are crucial to economic growth; although it's only a start, Mission Ribas will have succeeded in putting 210,000 children through primary school by the end of the year, and most graduates from Ribas will go apply to university through Mission Sucre. It's been estimated that Mission Barrio Adentro, which has supplied 20,000 Cuban medics across Venezuela, has resulted in 128 million consultations and 25,000 saved lives.

On top of health and education, land reform is empowering poor Venezuelans by making those in rural areas more self-sufficient, and in urban areas as well as rural areas, Venezuelans can use their property as collateral for loans to start businesses or to trade up and move elsewhere. This is the fastest way to get many Venezuelans out of poverty. Crucially, the urban land reform initiatives require communities to convene local councils to negotiate with utilities companies in order to come to an arrangement about how services will be provided; in conjunction with a law requiring private companies to act within the "national interest" (i.e. not rip people off and keep capital in the country), urban dwellers are assured that they'll get the basic services they need at an affordable price. Co-operatives and co-op banks are providing huge amounts of money to poor Venezuelans to engage in the "social economy", to start up their own businesses. The government provides training to farmers and city dwellers to manage their businesses properly. For those employed by companies, Venezuela needs labour rights laws but, unfortunately, the trades unions are pro-business, so the poor have to turn elsewhere. Plan de Consencio Nationale forms the blueprint for that - it's not a policy, it's a strategy, maybe this is where you're getting confused.

The key to transforming this into market diversification and sustainable growth is to shatter Venezuela's deep structural inequalities and to genuinely democratise state and the market.

The money that Chavewz is throwing around to his supporters will not last when commodity prices recede and then they really will have problems.

I don't doubt, given Venezuela's economic structure, that this probably will happen. But it mightn't happen if the government can succeed in making the state-market-society mix more flexible so that the whole country can reorient its policies to avoid disaster. The reason for so many Latin American countries going from crisis to crisis is strucutral inflexibility due to class conflict. However, this structural flexibility can't be neoliberalism - it has to be social democracy. A mixed economy. This is what Chavez, to my mind is moving towards. I think he's flirting with the models followed by Ireland and South Korea. The task is, however, enormous.

AngelofFire

Interesting according to todays Irish Times, Chavez offered humanitarian assistance to flood victims in Lousiana, but George Bush refused.

President4Life

I wouldn't vote for him in this country. However, he does seem to be legally elected and so we must accept the Venezulan people's decision. Including the US if it genuinely espouses the idea of spreading democracy.

Hobbes

AngelofFire wrote:

Interesting according to todays Irish Times, Chavez offered humanitarian assistance to flood victims in Lousiana, but George Bush refused.

Do you have a link to where he refused? Last I heard the US administration were denying it was ever offered.

I have seen news stories of refusing aid from.
- Germany
- France

Also Cuba offered aid as did Afganistan. Iran too but theres looks like they won't give it until sanctions are dropped (which to my knowledge border controls have been dropped for the emergency).

A Dub in Glasgo

President4Life wrote:

I wouldn't vote for him in this country. However, he does seem to be legally elected and so we must accept the Venezulan people's decision. Including the US if it genuinely espouses the idea of spreading democracy.

Bush or Chavez?

I wouldn't vote for him in this country. However, he does seem to be legally elected and so we must accept the US people's decision. Including Venezuala if it genuinely espouses the idea of spreading democracy

President4Life

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Bush or Chavez?

I wouldn't vote for him in this country. However, he does seem to be legally elected and so we must accept the US people's decision. Including Venezuala if it genuinely espouses the idea of spreading democracy

Yes we must accept the US people's decision. That of course doesn't mean we can't criticise him. Criticising the leader of a country is not the same as calling his right to govern in that country illegitimate. That's not to say the first Bush term was based on democracy however...

Thomond Pk

President of Ecuador seeks changes to oil contracts
By Hal Weitzman in Lima
Published: September 7 2005 23:19 | Last updated: September 7 2005 23:19

Alfredo Palacio, Ecuador’s president, on Wednesday said that existing contracts with foreign investors in the country’s oil sector were “unfair” and should be altered to give the state a greater share of revenues.


ADVERTISEMENT




“The oil contracts in general are going to be reviewed by my government as soon as possible,” Mr Palacio said in an interview with a local television station.

Mr Palacio said it was unfair that foreign companies received more than 80 per cent of oil revenues, considering the high level of oil prices. “That 80-20 split cannot continue. We must make it at least 50-50.”

The comments came weeks after violent protests in the eastern Amazon region shut down production by Petroecuador, the state oil company and the country’s biggest producer. Foreign investors such as Petrobras of Brazil, Occidental of the US and EnCana of Canada were the target of much of the discontent.

Figures released on Wednesday by Ecuador’s central bank showed that the country’s oil export revenues amounted to $2.8bn in the first seven months of the year, up from $2.1bn in the same period last year.

The report said Ecuador, the second largest exporter of crude to the US, exported an average 353,726 barrels a day between January and July, up from 347,042 b/d in the same period of 2004. Some 58 per cent of exports were sold by private companies, who earned about $1.6bn in revenues from the exports.

Mr Palacio, who polls indicate is supported by a diminishing minority of Ecuadoreans, said the contracts would be changed “very soon” according to the principles of “justice and fairness”.

”I have been in touch with the oil companies and they have agreed in principle to sit down with us and renegotiate the contracts,” he said. Ends

Hobbes

Can you please read the charter.

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

They've also been empowering Venezuelans.

FT wrote:

Germany's ambassador to Venezuela narrowly escaped a kidnap attempt when armed men snatched another European national mistaking him for the diplomat, it emerged on Wednesday.

Kidnappers seized a man believing him to be ambassador Hermann Erath from outside a restaurant in Caracas and drove the victim around the capital for several hours at high speed before releasing him.

Embassies in Caracas have issued security alerts to staff following the incident, which occurred about a week ago, according to a well-placed diplomat.

Abduction for ransom has risen sharply in Venezuela during the past five years, but the most recent incident suggests would-be kidnappers are becoming more bold in their choice of targets.

That is Chavez' Caracas

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/39163104-1ff3-11da-853a-00000e2511c8.html

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

That is Chavez' Caracas

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/39163104-1ff3-11da-853a-00000e2511c8.html

It must be breaking news because I can find absolutly no other story relating to what you posted.

Second it mentions that the Colombian gangs kidnapped him by crossing the border. Clearly a border issue and coming from Columbia (a very pro-us country).

Btw.. oh look not the first time Colombia has done this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4176347.stm