Venezuela, Hugo Chavez

Jesus1222

Thomond Pk wrote:

To state that there isn't a correlation between Islamic discussion forums and an above average level of anti-americanism is burying the head in the sand. There was nothing stupid about that; whatsoever given the level of American military intervention in that region.

I still don't get it. We're talking about anti-americanism now? I thought we were talking about Hugo Chavez. Or did you sharply go off topic?

As a moderator on another website discussion board there is always an understanding that all moderators represent that group and not their own opinions and clearly draw attention to their own opinions being exactly that.

That's completely wrong. Moderators have to be objective in their duties as moderators. Not in discussions.

I am very clearly of the opinion that a lot of the people hyping Chavez are doing so on the basis of his fiery anti-american foreign policy and not what he is doing domestically whjich can only be described as squandering oil revenues that belong to the Venezeulan people.

Who do you propose as the alternative? Surely the upper-class tea party that was Venezuelan politics before President Chavez was elected is undesirable? They would be in fact worse than Chavez squandering oil revenues (oil revenues that Chavez doubled btw, though you don't seem to have a coherent argument anyway) would they not?

Jesus1222

Thomond Pk wrote:

Absolutely not,

If you read through the thread I have made each one of those points individually and have supplied links to each of them with the exception of one that one being that Pat Rabbitte reads the FT.

I have never seen so many posters come down so hard one contributor on any forum;
You have not supplied one fact or link or reference to back up your own sniping activities. I also note that you have a sum total of 6 posts which either makes you a multiple identity user or a serious lurker.

Are you referring to me?

Could you quote me please when replying. It helps the readers of the thread and it's confusing for me as I don't know what you're replying to.

Thomond Pk

Jesus1222 wrote:

I still don't get it. We're talking about anti-americanism now? I thought we were talking about Hugo Chavez. Or did you sharply go off topic?

You raised this from pages back; so if you wish to discuss my response feel free.

Jesus1222 wrote:

That's completely wrong. Moderators have to be objective in their duties as moderators. Not in discussions.

That is a matter of opinion and varies from board to board.

Jesus1222 wrote:

Who do you propose as the alternative? Surely the upper-class tea party that was Venezuelan politics before President Chavez was elected is undesirable? They would be in fact worse than Chavez squandering oil revenues (oil revenues that Chavez doubled btw, though you don't seem to have a coherent argument anyway) would they not

You first get a corrupt government out and then look at an election; sustainability is the defining measure of any potential government in energy rich countries with high poverty levels.

linux

Thomond Pk wrote:

Absolutely not,

If you read through the thread I have made each one of those points individually and have supplied links to each of them with the exception of one that one being that Pat Rabbitte reads the FT.

I have read the thread and you have repeated your ascertions numerous times,the fact that you quoted the Financial times throughout your argument tells me that you take the view from a right wing economists perspective which would be quite the opposite of that of Chavez's political persuasion,so I'm not particularly interested in those opinions coinsidering Chavez just took back his country from right wing oil barron's.

Thomond Pk wrote:

I also note that you have a sum total of 6 posts which either makes you a multiple identity user or a serious lurker.

or new member.....
are you making some sort of an accusation or something? :mad:

Thomond Pk

Jesus1222 wrote:

Are you referring to me?

Could you quote me please when replying. It helps the readers of the thread and it's confusing for me as I don't know what you're replying to.

Unquoted responses generally refer to the comment directly above. You are touchy

Jesus1222

The numbers in the Poverty trap have risen by almost 10% since he took office; Source Venezerulan govenment.

URL?

Security is in crisis; Source FT; on attempted abduction of German diplomat.

Opinion piece. Colombian origin.

Corruption; Source FT; Shell being charged with tax evasion and the Chavez negotiating with them simultaneously on a $2.7bn energy project. You can't play that both ways the charges are real and he is knowingly negotiating with a company that is known to have commited tax evasion or the charges are bogus and politically motivated making him dishonest and populist.

That's [the tax evasion investigation] hardly evidence of corruption.

Autocratic; Source FT; Draining $5bn from the Central Bank foreign currency reserves and openly ignoring the advice of the Bank to spend on current spending in advance of next years election. Financial mismanagement that has all the hallmarks of a Haughey/Lynch maneouver and for which Venezeula will suffer like Ireland did between 1980 and 1989.

Venezuela's economy is growing at quite a good rate. And Chavez' economic record is quite good, even judging by figures you yourself have posted. Also, Haughey didn't have huge oil reserves behind him, Chavez' does.

Unprecedented Interference and econmic stupidity; Source FT; The imposition of two state appointees on the board of every bank whether domestic or international.

We could do with some of that ourselves in Ireland no?

Populist; Source Citgo. The offer to give discount gas to the poor of america; as we all know poor people don't have cars asnd citgo with a turnover of $400m don't have the distribtuion channels to implement it. They also haven't posted any audited accounts for over a year.

In fact this project was going to be run by a US based charity that was going to identify people in need of such relief. Allegation unfounded.

Confrontationalist; the Strike in 2002 can be largely down to Chavez and his confrontationalist style.

This is a poor analysis. It was down to Chavez confronting a certain elite power group, who didn't like being pushed around and their privileged positions being threatened. They didn't like being forced to democracise their unions either. Democracy is bad for these people, Chavez proves that, so they don't want any more of it.

Backward; The images on the site you supplied and numerous telivision appearances against a background of the National Flag and all the bull**** about Simon Bolivar who incidentally did all the fighting in the 1820's and is far less regarded than Mariscal Sucre in historical circles.

I think you misunderstand what he means by Bolivarian revolution. It invokes the spirit of Bolivar, rather than being literally associated with him, who, as you point out, died in the 1820s.

Conclusion; You don't have an argument but are happy to simply put on the rose tinted shades and pick holes in his actions which can only be descibed as astonishing for their audacity. Before you attack the FT again it is the paper of choice for the leader of the Irish socialists one Patricio Conneco.

The FT is not a left-wing publication. No serious analyst or journalist would claim that it was.

Take a look at contemporary Chile that is how to run a Latin American country in a word its called consensus.

Venezuela is an impoverished country. The rich elite got rich off the backs (literally) of the poor in the country. It's time for some redistribution of wealth and some practical schemes put in place in order to achieve this (and not just "capital investment" as you suggest). I've read all of your fisher-price analysis and it's not very convincing at all. So I'll leave the discussion at this point.

Thomond Pk

linux wrote:

I have read the thread and you have repeated your ascertions numerous times,the fact that you quoted the Financial times throughout your argument tells me that you take the view from a right wing economists perspective which would be quite the opposite of that of Chavez's political persuasion, :

So worrying that that $5bn of Central Banks funds is to be used to buy an election is right wing. That he is negoatating with an oil company facing tax charges is right wing. That a German diplomat escaped abduction only becuase the kidnappers took the wrong person is an economists perspective.

Can you not just look at the facts for one second?

linux wrote:

so I'm not particularly interested in those opinions coinsidering Chavez just took back his country from right wing oil barron's.

I now see why you can't

linux wrote:

or new member.....
are you making some sort of an accusation or something? :mad:

On second thoughts you probably are new to this; you accused me of trolling which is deliberately posting the opposite of what you believe to get a reaction. Flaming is what I think you were trying to accuse me of which is goading; I was doing neither I was simply restating that the facts had already been put into the discussion.

Thomond Pk

Jesus1222 wrote:

URL?

Source: Instituto National de Estadistica, Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela http://www.ine.gov.ve

Jesus1222 wrote:

Opinion piece. Colombian origin.

No it is a factual account of events; the author is based in Caracas and the publisher in London

Jesus1222 wrote:

That's [the tax evasion investigation] hardly evidence of corruption.

There are charges and there are contract negotiations you can't have it both ways.

Jesus1222 wrote:

Venezuela's economy is growing at quite a good rate. And Chavez' economic record is quite good, even judging by figures you yourself have posted. Also, Haughey didn't have huge oil reserves behind him, Chavez' does.

His record is vastly inferior of that of Saudi, Dubai or any of the other major oil producers. When the oil goes Venzeula will be like Bolivia.

Jesus1222 wrote:

We could do with some of that ourselves in Ireland no?

You would certainly get a cheap aprtment in the North Docklands they'd all be affordable housing then.

Jesus1222 wrote:

In fact this project was going to be run by a US based charity that was going to identify people in need of such relief. Allegation unfounded.

That was a sound bite and like so many of his other of his pr stunts evidence has never emerged on the depth of provision. Your turn to supply some statistics.

Jesus1222 wrote:

This is a poor analysis. It was down to Chavez confronting a certain elite power group, who didn't like being pushed around and their privileged positions being threatened. They didn't like being forced to democracise their unions either. Democracy is bad for these people, Chavez proves that, so they don't want any more of it.

Am I missing something or was it not the workers who went on strike?

Jesus1222 wrote:

I think you misunderstand what he means by Bolivarian revolution. It invokes the spirit of Bolivar, rather than being literally associated with him, who, as you point out, died in the 1820s.

If a politician in Ireland went on about the greast O'Connellesque revolution they were going to deliver they would be laughed off the stage. Hence the expression Bolivarian Baffon.

Jesus1222 wrote:

The FT is not a left-wing publication. No serious analyst or journalist would claim that it was.

The FT is a paper of record its International news and living sections are little different from the Irish Times and both use Reuters for imported content; if it were the Markets section of that paper I would agree with you but none of the above came from the markets section.

Jesus1222 wrote:

Venezuela is an impoverished country. The rich elite got rich off the backs (literally) of the poor in the country. It's time for some redistribution of wealth and some practical schemes put in place in order to achieve this (and not just "capital investment" as you suggest). I've read all of your fisher-price analysis and it's not very convincing at all. So I'll leave the discussion at this point.

Without proper infrastructure Countries stay poor. Less of the personal stuff.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

Source: Instituto National de Estadistica, Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela http://www.ine.gov.ve

Just a nitpick on your sources. They suck. Seriously. Its like me saying "Chavez found wearing a dress! check out http://www.google.com".

If your going to post a site source, post to the actual document in question.

His record is vastly inferior of that of Saudi, Dubai or any of the other major oil producers. When the oil goes Venzeula will be like Bolivia.

so he is worse then other countries means that he is terrible? I don't follow your logic. His reform programs seem to be suggest the opposite. Which country would have a better chance of survival when the oil runs out? One where 90% can't read or write, or where the majority can.

Am I missing something or was it not the workers who went on strike?

If you are talking of the strikes some years back, it was the administrative workers that went on strike. Already discussed some timeback in this forum.

If a politician in Ireland went on about the greast O'Connellesque revolution they were going to deliver they would be laughed off the stage. Hence the expression Bolivarian Baffon.

So picking a unrelated fictional incident to validate a factual one... just doesn't make sense.

The FT is a paper of record its International news and living sections are little different from the Irish Times and both use Reuters for imported content; if it were the Markets section of that paper I would agree with you but none of the above came from the markets section.

What we are asking is you use more then one source to actually point something out. Other sources that we can see directly instead of just linking to a general website where you will not be able to find the information easily. Afterall you found the information you should be able to link to it directly.

Without proper infrastructure Countries stay poor.

So your saying his reform programs are a good thing then?

Thomond Pk

Hobbes wrote:

Just a nitpick on your sources. They suck. Seriously. Its like me saying "Chavez found wearing a dress! check out http://www.google.com".

Gandalf wrote:

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.

Reading the thread usually gets to the policies in question.

Hobbes wrote:

If your going to post a site source, post to the actual document in question.

This is a Venezeulan Government website it is therefore considered an adequate link if you wish to prove your point. If you can't find it; it then geos to prove my point on the shambolic nature of the implementation of government systems through Lack of Investment in modern technologies whilst the money is squandered on political agendas

Hobbes wrote:

so he is worse then other countries means that he is terrible? I don't follow your logic. His reform programs seem to be suggest the opposite. Which country would have a better chance of survival when the oil runs out? One where 90% can't read or write, or where the majority can.

So squandering $5bn of Central Bank reserves on buying an election is excusable because literacy rates are low. Probably at this level because previous leaders also squandered revenues trying to buy previous elections.

Hobbes wrote:

If you are talking of the strikes some years back, it was the administrative workers that went on strike. Already discussed some timeback in this forum.

They are still workers and not some elite or foreign corporation; a strike is a strike and only union sanctioned activity can shut down an entire industry.

Hobbes wrote:

So picking a unrelated fictional incident to validate a factual one... just doesn't make sense.

So the name 'Bolivarian Republic' doesn't exist; nor does the farcical TV programme where Tio Chavez addresses his citizens; nor does the constant harping back to the 1820's and excessive use of national iconary.

Hobbes wrote:

What we are asking is you use more then one source to actually point something out. Other sources that we can see directly instead of just linking to a general website where you will not be able to find the information easily. Afterall you found the information you should be able to link to it directly.

With the exception of the Venezeulan equivelent of the CSO alllinks have linked to specific pages. Instead of attacking sources of record you should attempt to provide some numerical evidence of what Chavez has actually provided and not vague reference to some programmes.

Hobbes wrote:

So your saying his reform programs are a good thing then?

What programmes there is no statistical evidence to show that more provision exists in anything other than preseidential television addresses and strikes.

The conflict between the Shell Tax Charges and the contract negotiations must be addressed before you address any other point.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

Reading the thread usually gets to the policies in question.
...
This is a Venezeulan Government website it is therefore considered an adequate link if you wish to prove your point.

While you may be able to hide behind the charter to be as broad as possible, linking to the top level of a website (that isn't in English) and say "Find it yourself" is hardly helping your argument.

You clearly are stating them as facts, so from that we can assume that you have read that document that relates to these facts. If you have then you can clealy point me and others to this document. Why are you so insistent on not doing this?

If you can't find it;

It would be like me saying
1 in 3 Koreans can't read or write. source: http://www.daum.net/

Now I know this is BS, and I also know that even if anyone here reads Korean the chances of them finding it on that website are remote.

So I am saying either you are BS'ing or you are quoting another source that never pointed you to the facts in the first case and your just trying to cover your ass.

So squandering $5bn of Central Bank reserves on buying an election is excusable because literacy rates are low.

You have yet to prove this "buying an election".

They are still workers and not some elite or foreign corporation; a strike is a strike and only union sanctioned activity can shut down an entire industry.

They are what you would call "The rich elite" in the country that the vast majority prior to Chavez were not. Your argument was brought up before by someone else during that time and it was pointed out that it wasn't
"The working man" as defined as the majority striking.

So the name 'Bolivarian Republic' doesn't exist; nor does the farcical TV programme where Tio Chavez addresses his citizens; nor does the constant harping back to the 1820's and excessive use of national iconary.

No I am talking about the fiction you wrote "If a politician in Ireland went on about the greast O'Connellesque revolution they were going to deliver they would be laughed off the stage". You are trying to prove your point by pointing out an unrelated fictional point.

nstead of attacking sources of record you should attempt to provide some numerical evidence of what Chavez has actually provided and not vague reference to some programmes.

Which has already been cited earlier in this thread. As I said I am just reading general news on various sites. Your the one claiming it is false yet are incapable of backing those claims. I should also point out that I asked you to show me because all I can find is showing Chavez in a positive light (that can be backed up with reliable facts).

Thomond Pk

Until you deal with the actual facts and in particular the ridiculous situation of negotiating a $2.7bn contract with a company under tax charges you have insufficient standing to address anything else. You are cherrypicking whilst evading actual factual conflicts. You also have not stated for the record where your understanding of Latin American politics comes from.

Hobbes

Fine.. post me to the exact figures instead of the front page of a website then I can take you seriously.

Thomond Pk

Hobbes wrote:

Fine.. post me to the exact figures instead of the front page of a website then I can take you seriously.

If you lack the ability to navigate the website of a Country of whose Central Statistics office you are discussing you certainly should not be lauding its government and possibly shouldn't be discussing it at all. Your absolute failure to grasp Latin American politics is blatently obvious and your evasive nature bears all the hallmarks of a 'Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad' system of analysis.

For the record a different alphabet is used in Korea, a comparison with Lula's Brazil might work they use the roman alphabet. You can never prove a Latin American dictator has run off with the booty until after they have deposited in Panama or Switzerland, if you had visited the place you would see the level of security every government possesses. You are the first person I have ever heard attempting to equate any union with 'a powerful elite' although I wouldn't have minded Des Geraghty's salary. The O'Connellesque revolution will never be declared because unlike you most Irish people would see right through a Bolivarian revolution.

So are you going to address the points on the Shell conflict and the Central bank cleanout or are you going to keep sniping on fumes?

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

If you lack the ability to navigate the website of a Country of whose Central Statistics office you are discussing you certainly should not be lauding its government and possibly shouldn't be discussing it at all.

I don't speak the language. I can however get the page in question translated for reading if you pointed me directly to it, but trying to navigate to a website in a language I don't know where they are not even directly linked to the main page is kind of hard.

As you clearly are unable to point me to these statistics I can see that you do not know where the page is either (despite claiming it exists). Otherwise why are you so pigheaded in not giving me the link? You posted the figures so clearly you saw the page they came from no?

Your absolute failure to grasp Latin American politics is blatently obvious

Actually its my failure to grasp your proof. I have already pointed out in the first page of the thread that what I know is from general worldwide news. It is you making the claims of corruption or whatnot but are incapable of backing them up.

When I ask you a simple question of "please directly link me to the facts you are posting" you are unable to do it. If you are incapable of even doing this why should I take you seriously?

For the record a different alphabet is used in Korea,

Duh. I can read Korean. I purposely used a site that would be hard to navigate. Just because the alphabet is different doesn't make much difference if you can't read the language.

As I said I am quite happy to continue on this discussion when you do this one thing for me.

linux

I wholly support Chavez and his administration and wish them all the best in what is sure to be a difficult job in re-building his country in the face of US oil grabbing tyranny. He has done a superb job to date and was even in a position to offer aid to hurricane torn New Orleans. Chavez is a man of the people and that was self evident when the Venezualan people forced the previous US led oil grabbing administration out of office, and thus the Return of there hero Chavez.

DadaKopf

Thomond Pk wrote:

You are asking a lot considering how little you have supplied yourself and given that you have never been to the Country. Have you been to Latin America or are your opinions based solely on one television programme and a bit of googling?

I've listed programmes, missions, government initiatives, UN reports and so on to give you a flavour of Chavez's domestic policies, which undermine your argument that Chavez has no "vision" for Venezuela.

You've also forgotten that at the outset I said Chavez is a progressive and a populist - the jury's still out on him, but he and Venezuelan policies aren't as bad as you make out. Oh yeah, you still haven't pointed out your alternative vision for Venezuela.

By the way, my information comes from a range of sources, including academic journals, World Bank reports, UN documents, that kind of thing. Jus' sayin'.

The numbers in the Poverty trap have risen by almost 10% since he took office; Source Venezerulan govenment.

Specific source and statistic, please. Not saying you're wrong, not saying your right, but you're missing out on a crucial point with respect to domestic policies - many of the missions etc. haven't yet been measured, or can't yet be measured, in standard GDP/GNP poverty measures. This is standard practise but inaccurate.

Security is in crisis; Source FT; on attempted abduction of German diplomat.

Agreed that Venezuela isn't a safe place compared to places like Europe, but more dangerous than Colombia? And, didn't that FT article say the kidnappers came from Colombia? Hmmm. Oh yeah, and to combat bad policing, hasn't Chavez implemented a national action plan? I guess, well, maybe he realises security is an economic growth issue.

Corruption; Source FT; Shell being charged with tax evasion and the Chavez negotiating with them simultaneously on a $2.7bn energy project. You can't play that both ways the charges are real and he is knowingly negotiating with a company that is known to have commited tax evasion or the charges are bogus and politically motivated making him dishonest and populist.

I'll have to research this more when I get time, but I can imagine Shell is being charged with tax evasion because they've refused to pay double-royalties on oil, which the government uses to fund national development programmes. See, what you don't understand is that the state depends on revenues, and in order to secure those revenues, it has to be strong to secure its tax base, but it also has to attract inward investment to boost growth. There's nothing mad about this in principle because all Chávez is saying is, "Lads, by law, you owe us money, but we still want your investment and jobs, so I'll tell you what, we'll do a $2.7bn deal with you, but it's on our terms." In principle, it seems Chavez is doing what European states wish they could do: challenge big business to pay their bleedin' taxes but stay in a country to make a profit. See, the Venezuelan government now only seeks a "dominant position" in oil, gas and electricity (source is a journal you mightn't have access to).

As for corruption in general, as I said before, the World Bank has noted the Government's attempts to tackle government corruption and improve efficiency and governance. So it looks like Chavez is cutting down on waste and corruption that mushroomed during the right-wing governments in the 1980s.

Autocratic; Source FT; Draining $5bn from the Central Bank foreign currency reserves and openly ignoring the advice of the Bank to spend on current spending in advance of next years election. Financial mismanagement that has all the hallmarks of a Haughey/Lynch maneouver and for which Venezeula will suffer like Ireland did between 1980 and 1989.

Again, I'll have to research this, but you argument seems simplistic to say the least. Are you sure it's from the currency reserves, or the oil-based macroeconomic stabilisation fund (which he set up), or where is it from? Are you assuming the $5bn 'drained' from the state coffers isn't going into productive sectors which will produce multipliers in the medium- to long-term? You seem to assume that (a) Chavez did this illegally, or by decree [actually this happens more, it seems, in Argentina], or (b) taking out money like this in a country experiencing an oil boom (for the time being) is necessarily bad. I'd love to see your economic argument for this.

Autocratic? Interesting, by strengthening the state to protect itself and the poor from unrelenting economic winds, he's an autocrat. But former Venezuelan governments who didn't give two shíts about the poor majority and held power through the military and police force by virtue of the depths of their pockets weren't more autocratic? It's also true that to free things up in Venezuela, to increase economic pariticpation, Chavez has to break the unions' stranglehold over state enterprises, a problem that emerged in the 1960s.

Unprecedented Interference and econmic stupidity; Source FT; The imposition of two state appointees on the board of every bank whether domestic or international.

'Economic stupidity', what a clear-headed, rational, mature and scientific thing to say. 'Unprecedented interference'? I'd be mental if I didn't say, as I have before, that there is a worry that should the economy fail, Chavez may become authoritarian, but not necessarily. Again, you also completely miss the structures and constraints that an oil-based, primary commodity exporting country faces and how difficult it is to escape boom-bust/political stability-instability cycles. The Chavez administration, I think, understands this, which is why they've implemented programmes to diversify the economy through micro-credit schemes, infrastructural projects, (a model now being followed by foreign aid agencies), enforcing labour laws, boosting food security through rural land reform, implementing Plan de Consensio Nationale, things like this.

I'm all for political interference if it's time-bound and its methods and objectives make things more democratic. Let's see, he's trying to create a counterweight to big business and the big-business dominated unions in various ways. One of his first objectives was to break the 'Puntofijismo' system whereby political competition was limited to just two parties - that's right, the ones dominated by business and really big business. Through parliamentary and judiciary reforms, among others, more parties now participate in parliament, more women participate, more indigenous peoples participate in legislation. Local government and collective organisation of production (not collective ownership) are beginning to blossom, albeit slowly - that's because Venezuela is huge and only an idiot would think these things don't take time.

Populist; Source Citgo. The offer to give discount gas to the poor of america; as we all know poor people don't have cars asnd citgo with a turnover of $400m don't have the distribtuion channels to implement it. They also haven't posted any audited accounts for over a year.

Yep, this was a right laugh altogether and pandered to the electorate. Personally, I'd think populism really means the use of patrimonial ruler-ruled relationships where particular leaders secure power by offering gifts to the masses in return for support under pretences such as 'liberation'. Is Chavez doing this? Maybe, possibly in part, but for now, the jury is out on him. Or maybe Chavez isn't doing this but some minions further down the governmental chain are, in which case it's not Chavez who's doing it but Chavez who has a responsibility to weed it out. It remains to be seen whether the current regime 'captures' state assets for personal profit, despite a programme of incremental liberalisation, but I'm quite sure the opposition is more than happy to exaggerate this. I've yet to see clear evidence this is happening.

Confrontationalist; the Strike in 2002 can be largely down to Chavez and his confrontationalist style.

Funny, I thought it was management who locked out the workers to destabilise his political base. He is confrontationalist, but in a constructive way - he brings things to a head, then holds out an olive branch compromise in an attempts to build consensus. (Source, again, a journal you mightn't have access to).

Backward; The images on the site you supplied and numerous telivision appearances against a background of the National Flag and all the bull**** about Simon Bolivar who incidentally did all the fighting in the 1820's and is far less regarded than Mariscal Sucre in historical circles.

Backward? How? Because, uh, Venezuela Analysis is it, didn't display Chavez against a backdrop of robots dancing with astronauts on Mars?

Conclusion; You don't have an argument but are happy to simply put on the rose tinted shades and pick holes in his actions which can only be descibed as astonishing for their audacity. Before you attack the FT again it is the paper of choice for the leader of the Irish socialists one Patricio Conneco.

"Astonishing for their audacity". Man, where did you go to finishing school?

DadaKopf

Your absolute failure to grasp Latin American politics is blatently obvious

I really don't think you understand the historical relationships between state-capital-society in Venezuela at all.

At least I've been able to piece it together from the backs of sugar packets, mostly. Uh, I mean the kinds of sources I mentioned above.

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

"Astonishing for their audacity". Man, where did you go to finishing school?

I'm still there and it is called life, I can just here the sheep bleeting 'Fours legs good up the proletariat'

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

I'm still there and it is called life, I can just here the sheep bleeting 'Fours legs good up the proletariat'

Wow. great rebuttal to an excellent post by Dada.

Btw, I don't recall ever saying I was an expert on Chavez, etc. What I did ask was for proof to the contrary as I had problems finding it. Refusing to show that proof and brerating people for *gasp* asking doesn't really help your argument.

I await your concise reply to Dadas post. I'll say its going to be good.

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

I really don't think you understand the historical relationships between state-capital-society in Venezuela at all.

At least I've been able to piece it together from the backs of sugar packets, mostly. Uh, I mean the kinds of sources I mentioned above.

So electing a President who drains the National Reserves and does $2.7bn deals with companies under tax evasion charges is the solution. You have not listed one International source of record, not one.

I'd give you a guided tour of Venezeula but unfortunately I don't give them for either Venezeula or Columbia; I will be in the Andina in November you are welcome to come to see what life is actually like there. You will see how other similar Countries such as Ecaudor, Peru, Bolivia and Chile have dealt with exactly the same sociological conflicts. But I doubt you will come you are probably saving for that trip to visit Fidel.

Hobbes

If your paying I'll take the tour!

Thomond Pk

Unfortunately you have to pay; those Bio-Spheres don't fund themselves and the local communities need the money more than you do.

Hobbes

Thats a shame... any luck on finding those statistics for me on that site? Heres a reminder.

1998 49.00
1999 42.80
2000 41.60
2001 39.10
2002 41.50
2003 54.00
2004 53.10
Percentage of households living in poverty by year.
Source: Instituto National de Estadistica, Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela http://www.ine.gov.ve/

Oddly enough I was able to find those statistics on anti-Chevez type sites however like yourself they didn't actually point me to the report in question. So any help to point me to it?

Hobbes

This is why I think your full of crap.. or rather why you shouldn't just spout news sources without actually checking the facts behind them.

Thought I'd bite the bullet and run the website through machine translation. Wow amazing as it sounds but in big picture it had a link on the first page to a detailed report in PDF format. If you had read this report you could of told me straight off which link to click.

Btw for your reference its "Índice de Pobreza e IDH" (Graphic: REPORTE SOCIAL).

So I downloaded the PDF. The figures don't match up with what you posted. The closest I could find was "2004 54.00".

HOWEVER what your little chart fails to realise the breakdown in which the poor are recorded. They are broken down as follows.
Extremly Poor,
Poor,
Not Poor.
(maybe you can translate it better for me).

While the "poor" figure goes up so does the "not poor" and the "extremly poor" goes down.

Also if you read down through it you can see better breakdowns over the years and from what I could see the country is actually improving.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Read the actual report.

Jesus1222

Thomond Pk wrote:

So squandering $5bn of Central Bank reserves on buying an election is excusable because literacy rates are low. Probably at this level because previous leaders also squandered revenues trying to buy previous elections.

You're wrong on so many issues. Your sources are very poor or non-existant. You continually refer to statistics and events you never provide evidence for and the sources you do provide are very poor or do not match up to the allegation. And on this point about the $5bn. I have not read that Chavez took $5bn to buy the election. It does not seem plausible, as he was going to be re-elected in any case. He has the support of about 80% of the population and even at election time when the opposition squeeze every vote they can out of the electorate he still wins taking a majority of 60% in the process. There is no viable opposition to Chavez in Venezuela. Venezuelans know this, so when (poor non-white, 80% of the population) Venezuelans do complain about their government it's usually directed at the Chavez government for going too slow, for not going further and not going further left in their policies. They don't want Chavez out, they want Chavez in and they want him to go further and more dramatically left-wing. Most analysts (including those in the FT, World Bank, IMF, US, EU and across a broad spectrum of the media) have recognised that the Chavez government's programs are underpinned by a policy of fiscal responsibility. And thus, it has been said by many people that it is better for everybody, including the US, that Chavez remains in power. Under him, he unites all the different groups that support him and he provides stability to an oil-producing nation. Sure, he's not a huge friend of the fiscal policies that destroyed Argentina and provoked class riots in Bolivia, but that's a good point. And most analysts, even World Bank economists, recognise this.

Chavez is good for the region and good for Venezuala. This has been proven by his government's success in avoiding economic meltdown that the opposition tried to make happen there, the Chavez government, incredibly, actually grew the economy during this period.

If he is assassinated or somehow removed from office by the oligarchs of Venezuela, it will "go Communist" overnight and the situation will rapidly descend into a bloody civil war. Presuming the military side with the rich.

The only way you should advocate getting rid of Chavez is by the ballot box. There is no other way. Chavez has himself put in procedures to allow him to be re-called. No attempts have been successful so far. So I guess the best thing for you to do is to accept that a huge majority of Venezuelans want Hugo Chavez and his government to continue with their reforms. And hopefully the 35% of people who live on $2 a day or less will have some future.

Jesus1222

Thomond Pk wrote:

The conflict between the Shell Tax Charges and the contract negotiations must be addressed before you address any other point.

$135 million to Shell is chump change. If anything, the tax issue indicates that the Chavez government is looking out for it's citizens and making sure the State is paid what it is owed.

I can't in my mind link the tax issue you refer to with corruption. It seems nonsensical. Though that at least would follow the trend of your posts.

sceptre

Thomond Pk wrote:

I'm still there and it is called life, I can just here the sheep bleeting 'Fours legs good up the proletariat'

Cute. Worthless but cute. As a hitherto mere casual reader of the thread I'm a little disappointed that to back up your point of view you've done little more than pointing at the Internet and saying "Lo, behold!" and appear more interested in discussing that when pressed than actually providing anything close to a useful source. It's not quite too late to start doing that any time soon but until then catahphrases and rhetoric don't hold much currency on their own. I don't need a guided tour of inner Caracas but I think some of us would like something a little more tangiable than "if only you could see, man (you blind bastard)" summaries. Your point of view may well be entirely valid, heck it may be entirely correct, so how about demonstrating that in some useful way?

(You're not the only one doing this btw - just by far the main culprit)

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

While the "poor" figure goes up so does the "not poor" and the "extremly poor" goes down.

You mean he's making some poor people not poor, but making even more people poor instead of extremely poor?

Thats, like, giving the worst off the most help...

Despicable.

jc

Hobbes

bonkey wrote:

You mean he's making some poor people not poor, but making even more people poor instead of extremely poor?

Thats, like, giving the worst off the most help...

Despicable.

jc

Well I think its a translation thing then anything else
It had..
"no pobre"
"pobre"
"e pobre" (e for extreme?)

So its likely it means upper/middle/lower class?

Sent them an email for the english version.