Venezuela, Hugo Chavez

DadaKopf

Hey, Thomond, where you gone?

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

Hey, Thomond, where you gone?

Just back from 10 days in Russia, I could swear I heard yourself and Hobbes bleating outside St Basils

Thomond Pk

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/77b3e05a-2ddb-11da-aa88-00000e2511c8.html

He's at it again.......

A Dub in Glasgo

Venezuela is rich in natural resources. Oil and mineral prices are rising. So perhaps it is not surprising that the radical nationalist government is seeking to impose more stringent terms on foreign oil and mining companies.

Wow... Shock... Horror... who would have thought that?

Certainly that is the view of some oil majors and - judging by the reported comments of its chief executive to Reuters - of Crystallex International, the Canadian mid-cap mining company, which is at the centre of the latest controversy swirling around the intentions of President Hugo Chávez.

The suspense is killing me but then I get

The rest of this article is for FT.com subscribers only

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

Just back from 10 days in Russia, I could swear I heard yourself and Hobbes bleating outside St Basils

Really? I had forgotten all about you to be honest considering you have yet to back anything up thrown at you as a rebuttal and your only source was shown to be full of crap, but also that you probably never read the sources it quoted to even check if what you were posting was factual.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/77b3e05a-2...000e2511c8.html

Wow.. a couple of paragraphs of a story. I'd ask you to find a story people could read, but then you wouldn't have your bias on it would you.

Here let me help you, sorry no bias on it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4271024.stm

Btw I read that story last week. Still doesn't help you in your previous arguments. Or are you going to keep posting new crap as a rebuttal?

This is what I mean by spin.. From your source..
"Crystallex International, the Canadian mid-cap mining company, which is at the centre of the latest controversy swirling around the intentions of President Hugo Chávez."

From BBC...
"Canadian business Crystallex has a lucrative contract to build a gold mine and processing plant in Las Cristinas, home to one of the world's largest undeveloped gold deposits. Crystallex said plans to create a new state mining company would not affect the contract, in which it plans to invest $265m. Our mining contract would remain intact and be administered by the new mining company," its chief executive Todd Bruce said. "

Thomond Pk

Good to see that you are still bleating away Hobbes,

This latest move is far from Venezeulas best interests the country does not possess the technical resources to prospect let alone extract these resources. Training orchestras and other grand cultural projects is about his limit.

The stats are on the site provided you simply lack the linguistic skills and cultural understanding to find them.

I challenge you to address the conflict of interest between the $140,000,000 tax prosecution and the $2,700,000,000 PPP Chavez is doing with Shell. If you can't retreat to the meadow.

A Dub in Glasgo

So what does the rest of the FT article say?

DadaKopf

This latest move is far from Venezeulas best interests the country does not possess the technical resources to prospect let alone extract these resources.

Source, please.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

Good to see that you are still bleating away Hobbes,

All you hear is bleating? Thats a shame. If you spent more time rebuttal with actual facts instead of name calling you would get somewhere.

The stats are on the site provided you simply lack the linguistic skills and cultural understanding to find them.

For those who are just joining us. You posted statistics from an "anti-chavez" site and linked to an actual source where those statistics were. As pointed out I did in fact lack the skills initially to find them, however I asked you countless times to point us to them and you refused proving that you never actually read the real statistics. For when you actually read the real report you would see that your original post had been full of crap.

Unlike you I tried to determine if what you posted was true or not. You didn't.

Next time, you post prehaps back up your facts and read those facts before spouting them and be a bit more forthcoming when someone asks for information.

I challenge you to address the conflict of interest between the $140,000,000 tax prosecution and the $2,700,000,000 PPP Chavez is doing with Shell. If you can't retreat to the meadow

Whos bleating now, you have been challanged numerous times throughout this thread and you tend to ignore people and continue on another subject. Just like now.

Challange? When you can prove that you are quoting from reliable sources I might take you seriously enough to believe that you have a point.

Btw, it is you making the point that there is conflict of interest so the challange is up to you to prove your point. Not to make wild accusations then tell people to prove you are right (life doesn't work that way).

As far as I can see Shell owe a country outstanding taxes which to this point they were happy enough not to pay.

This latest move is far from Venezeulas best interests the country does not possess the technical resources to prospect let alone extract these resources

Like I said, try reading something without bias. They are implementing the program to stop money leaving the country (which has been in droves to this point). They are still allowing+getting forgien investments they are just building their own infrastructure to compete at the same time.


Now... go read back through the thread from when you *weren't here* and try replying to people who actually asked you questions instead of trying to continually trying to change the subject with flawed sources to get your point across.

Thomond Pk

Hobbes,

You have some nerve to rely on sites that no-one has never heard of and then attempt to portray the largest selling financial paper in Europe as an unreliable source. The facts are there Shell are being charged with Tax Evasion and Hugo Chavez is simultaneously in publicly recorded negotiations to award them a PPP for $2,700,000,000

Now if the FT were so biased and unreliable would they be raising such issues that have the capacity to paint a PLC quoted within their own juristiction in such a poor light?

I think not, now when you have visited this country or even met some Venezeulans I suggest you return to this discussion. Until then stop sniping with your four legs good two legs bad inspired bias.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

You have some nerve to rely on sites that no-one has never heard of and then attempt to portray the largest selling financial paper in Europe as an unreliable source.

BBC News? Anyone hear of this place before? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

As for the other site.. http://www.ine.gov.ve/

You posted that link first (to claim that the country was getting poorer), not me and as shown from the information on that site that I had to find myself because you hadn't read it it was shown that you were wrong.

Unless there is another site you speak of?

Now if the FT were so biased and unreliable

The point is all you have posted is FT. Its like that is all you are capable of reading and taking as gospel. Oh look another rebuttal of "Haven't visited the country" and name calling. Can you not do better then that to get a point a across?

And FT is biased (mind you all media is biased in some form or another). The stories you have posted so far I have cross referenced with other reports and there is a clear bias from the same reporter. I point this out only a few posts earlier in regards to your "Hes doing it again". Not to mention the Kidnap story (which had more to do with colombia but was spun for Venezuela) was only reported by FT and no other source in the world that I could find.

Remember my original request was to show me why you believe Chavez is bad for country. You have yet to do that unless name calling is some way to win people over?

democrates

The facts are there Shell are being charged with Tax Evasion and Hugo Chavez is simultaneously in publicly recorded negotiations to award them a PPP for $2,700,000,000

If this seems contradictory, isn't it contradictory for shell too, or is there some legitimate double-standard? Are we supposed to believe they are abducted victims or something? He's got the CEO in a double-Nelson on a veranda in cracarse?
Shell suits are over there busily negotiating a new deal for themselves, obviously because it is in their shareholders interests. Similarly, despite Chavez's annoyance with their past misconduct, isn't it plausible that he's capable of putting his emotions to the side and realising the practical options, negotiating to get the best deal for his people?

[If the figures are true that 80% of Venezuelas oil revenues were going to Big Oil well it's about time the people got a fair share, that level of greed when people there are dying in poverty - shame on you shell. If corporate social responsibility were a reality rather than bullsh1t hugo would be surplus to requirements and the people would be all cozy in bed with the corporates.]

And as for the 'squandering' of reserves,
a) I'm not an economist (others reading may be) but it seems that's rainy day money, and it's lashing on the people
b) where is the proof of squandering? what projects have been a waste? how have these been assessed? is it early enough to judge long-term strategies? Seems to me there are a heap of good projects on the go, but I wouldn't expect magic overnight.

I'm not making any assumptions one way or the other, this guy could evolve into something disappointing and go down the totalitarian route, but I'm sure not swayed by arguments which look at reports and seem to assume the worst possible motivation behind them.

I'd like to hear more on the theory of what you think he is out to do, what are these 'wider ambitions', 'agenda' etc and what the evidence is for that? You could be right, how do I know.

I hope he goes further and brings in direct democracy for the people as they have in Switzerland, plus makes it easy for entrepreneurs to introduce industrial democracy in companies as Ricardo Semler did to stunning success with Semco. That way the people will have maximum freedom as opposed to the retrograde oppressive central command hierarchies favoured by both totalitarian political regimes and western-style corporations.

Thomond Pk

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/19aa11d0-40ca-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html

DadaKopf

Hey, mods, isn't Thomond meant to make a comment, not just post a link?

democrates

Thomond Pk wrote:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/19aa11d0-40ca-11da-b3f9-00000e2511c8.html

What else would you expect to hear from Lord Lamont in the FT? Note the ususal right-wing rhetoric, Chavez is 'populist', rather than 'popular'. The opinions of someone who believes in privilege and class division are far from persuasive.

He's right to point out that if you don't give big corporates the deal they want they'll invest their wealth elsewhere, thus any nation who dares to demand justice is punished with private economic sanctions.

I'd like to see if a few like-minded nations can work together to build prosperous just societies. It will mean pain for a few years as they suffer the wrath of the global investor elite, but it would be worth it in the long term and show the hoodwinked rest of us that free co-operation between enterprising people is better than competing ever harder as employees in corporations to further enrich investors.

If Lord Lamont's investor buddies really believe in competition, why do they try to build monopolies? If they believe in democracy why do they use central command corporations? If they believe in justice why do they insist on dividing society into rich investors and struggling employees?

A corporation has one job: concentrate wealth with the investor class. The more transactions the better and that is why they obsess with economic growth. They constantly advertise at 'consumers' whipping up a frenzy of greed and selfishness. It's not Terry's it's mine. It's not your wadi it's mi-wadi. There's motherly love and there's Muller love. Your hapiness loves cadburys. Love Boots. Hey Debbie want to go boogie woogie? They want us to use or ignore people and love products. It's a vast global exercise in anti-social engineering.

We already consume and pollute at a faster rate than the earth can supply or dissapate, but they can't stop themselves from worsening it. Capitalism has no off switch and it's down to nature to regulate human activity. There's no particular amount of money they want, it's about how much bigger their slice of the cake is than others, how much they can dominate.

They do this because they can. We let them, and do little to gain a fair deal. Capital is global, footloose and fancy free with no loyalty, democracy is stuck at the national level. This world is being run by one vote per dollar while one vote per person is rendered irrelevant.

But I'm an optimist, democracy is starting to spread to the global level. The Doha round may yet deliver good effects beyond addressing the scandalous european and us farm subsidies and tarriffs. One day there'll be a global minimum wage. One day we'll co-operate and choose a sustainable economic model. One day we'll be truly content with enough.

So far from Lord Lamonts assertion that the south americans are backward in not getting market ideology like the rest of us, it is they who have woken up to the great lie, and we who need to follow. It's a question of when, not if, you can't kid all of the people all of the time.

Hobbes

DadaKopf wrote:

Hey, mods, isn't Thomond meant to make a comment, not just post a link?

I'm beginning to think he works for FT. Considering there was better recent news about Chavez that I was expecting him to post (but would of required reading other news sources).

Btw, not sure if it was over but BBC were (are?) setting up a public Q&A with Chavez. You were able to ask your questions online and they would be answered in a show.

Thomond Pk

Carefully selected questions of course; dada heres your comment;

look at Bolivia it gives you a flavour of where Chavez is bringing Venezeula

DadaKopf

Could you give me any convincing evidence that that this is the case? Or that you have the ability to see into the future?

Thanks.

Yours etc.
DK.

XOXO

MrJoeSoap

Hobbes wrote:

Btw, not sure if it was over but BBC were (are?) setting up a public Q&A with Chavez. You were able to ask your questions online and they would be answered in a show.

Its on this Sunday on BBC World Service and BBC World Television at 14.06GMT.

Thomond Pk wrote:

Carefully selected questions of course

Carefully selected I'm sure, but balanced.

Here's a sample of the dissenting voices:

By allying himself with regimes in Iran, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Chavez shows his true colours. Like others before him, he exploits the poor while claiming to help them. History has shown that free markets are best for a nation's economy, and socialism breeds poverty. Compare nations on either side of the iron curtain if you doubt this premise.
PCRH, Dallas, TX, USA

President Chavez, it is great to see the oil revenues of Venezuela at last being used to help the poor of your country, and you deserve credit for that. However, it is disheartening that you should apparently see Robert Mugabe as an ally. Mugabe is no Castro - you do your socialist cause a great disservice by failing to distance yourself from him.
Douglas Lindsay, Glasgow, Scotland.

As a Venezuelan I don't understand what you are doing in my country. Since you are President we're poorer and more negligent about public issues. You are an autocratic leader and you must go out of the presidency to give chance a really representatives of the poor. Venezuela would thank you.
Carlos Fernando Calatrava P, Caracas, Venezuela

If Chavez and his policies are so good why are most educated young professionals leaving the country? The brain drain has to be an indication of social discomfort, if we believe the economy is fine in Venezuela.
Argimiro Rodriguez, London, UK

Maybe you could ask him a question yourself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4350254.stm

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

Could you give me any convincing evidence that that this is the case? Or that you have the ability to see into the future?

Extensive experience of Latin America leads me to this opinion.

My own view of politics involves government regulation of the economy and prospective legislative intervention in the domestic field and a stable foreign policy that causes no destabalisation in other juristictions.

Chavez in contast has destroyed the Venzeulan economy, looted the central bank, driven out investment (except for Shell) and the resulting imported expertise and encouraged a braindrain on a catastrophic scale Miami is almost the second City of Venezeula at this stage.

Natural resources are a finite asset when they are gone there is nothing to replace them unless other sources of revenue are developed. Bolivia has suffered from this and Chavez is leading Venezeula down the same road; Zimbabwe is a very relevant alliance and a graphic illustration along with Bolivia of what happens when the commodity markets go south.


Joe I would be very interested to see if Hugo dealt with these live on domestic TV or had script lackeys draft answers to the above questions; questions 3 & 4 are particularly interesting.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

Extensive experience of Latin America leads me to this opinion.

Which is interesting seeing as it is the BBC who will be asking the questions. Or do you base everything on extensive experience of Latin America (which translates to "I read FT").

Chavez in contast has destroyed the Venzeulan economy, looted the central bank, driven out investment (except for Shell) and the resulting imported expertise and encouraged a braindrain on a catastrophic scale Miami is almost the second City of Venezeula at this stage.

Oh Jeez lets not start this crap again. We have already covered all that and you have of yet to prove any of it.

Natural resources are a finite asset when they are gone there is nothing to replace them unless other sources of revenue are developed.

Maybe thats why Chavez is bringing in forigen teachers in various areas to increase the skills of the workers in the country so when the resources do go they will be able to withstand it?

Thomond Pk

Hobbes wrote:

Which is interesting seeing as it is the BBC who will be asking the questions. Or do you base everything on extensive experience of Latin America (which translates to "I read FT").

Unfortunately the answers were not supplied, as for my experience I have spent nearly 15 months in different South American Countries since 1998 at regular intervals. On that basis alone do I a. form my opinions and b. trust the FT because unlike the Star and INM they actually get things right.

Hobbes wrote:

Oh Jeez lets not start this crap again. We have already covered all that and you have of yet to prove any of it.

So the $5bn wasn't taken from the Central Reserva and Shell Aren't being charged with tax evasion whilst being preferred bidder on a $2.7bn gas terminal. Those are matters of public record

Hobbes wrote:

Maybe thats why Chavez is bringing in forigen teachers in various areas to increase the skills of the workers in the country so when the resources do go they will be able to withstand it?

For the orchestras I believe; certain skills particularly energy and IT skills lead a lot more than 'forigen teachers' [Sic] you know the ones that produce real foriegn currency

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

So the $5bn wasn't taken from the Central Reserva and Shell Aren't being charged with tax evasion whilst being preferred bidder on a $2.7bn gas terminal. Those are matters of public record

As I said it has been discussed to death. Just because you fail to read any of it doesn't mean what you are spouting over and over is true or reflective of what was discussed.

democrates

Hobbes wrote:

As I said it has been discussed to death. Just because you fail to read any of it doesn't mean what you are spouting over and over is true or reflective of what was discussed.

Concur. It reads more like a defence of dogma than open-minded discourse.

lazydaisy

Did you try message boards? There are plenty of Venezuelans who speak English and might be able to help. There is currently huge emigration from Venezuela to Miami and Italy [I know -Italy?]. I'm sure there are substantial eye witness and anecdotal accounts. You could try craigslist Miami.

From what I've heard Chavez thinks he's Castro. A Venezuelan friend of mine who still lives there, told me his cousin was thrown in jail and tortured for protesting the new government. You probably wont find that many dissenting voices because they are being silenced by the current government.

Thomond Pk

democrates wrote:

Concur. It reads more like a defence of dogma than open-minded discourse.

I don't know how you can draw that opinion of three financial facts;

Central reserve looted of $5,000,000,000
Tax evasion charge $140,000,000
PPP with company under charge $2,700,000,000

A dogma is generally considered to be an ideology based on theory and not legal events unlike arguing in the absence of facts or direct experience of the situation or country under discussion.

Lazydaisy I have not had any acquaintances in Venezeula that have suffered a similar fate but it would not surprise me if that were the case; left or right south american totalitarian regimes have been known to do this regularly.

DadaKopf

Central reserve looted of $5,000,000,000
Tax evasion charge $140,000,000
PPP with company under charge $2,700,000,000

I never got an answer from you. Is this 'central reserve' actually the oil-based Macroeconomic Stabilisation Fund? If it was, as you say, 'looted', could you please tell me where it went to justify the charge of 'looting', rather than legally circumscribed government expenditure?

We've already gone over the 'tax evasion' thing - if a MNC evades tax, as proscribed by law, it's illegal, therefore the government it entitled to get the money owed to them. The only articles I've found on this argue either thatthe company broke the law and must pay its taxes (a fair, legally sound argument), or that paying tax is wrong because companies don't like paying taxes so they shouldn't pay the tax.

Emmigration to Miami is caused by rich Venezuelans who want to take the country's capital stock and savings and investment capacity. Chavéz isn't driving them out, they just don't want to share their money. It's an attitudinal thing. Venezuelan political cleavages are based on race and class divisions - these cleavages are the things that are influencing this capital flight, which any sensible macroeconomist would tell a president to stop.

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

I never got an answer from you. Is this 'central reserve' actually the oil-based Macroeconomic Stabilisation Fund? If it was, as you say, 'looted', could you please tell me where it went to justify the charge of 'looting', rather than legally circumscribed government expenditure?

The 'Great Bolivarian Revolution' is about as specific as Chavez has been on this. In any functional democracy there has always been a seperation in the organs of government and lines of demarcation between the different functions. Taking $5bn in foreign reserves from the Central Reserva against the publicly expressed wishes of both the board and president of that institution is looting. As bad as things ever got in this state the Central Bank always maintained their autonomy.

DadaKopf wrote:

We've already gone over the 'tax evasion' thing - if a MNC evades tax, as proscribed by law, it's illegal, therefore the government it entitled to get the money owed to them. The only articles I've found on this argue either thatthe company broke the law and must pay its taxes (a fair, legally sound argument), or that paying tax is wrong because companies don't like paying taxes so they shouldn't pay the tax.

That is a fair analysis of the press coverage but your analysis entirely fails to address the conflict between on the one hand prosecuting a tax offender and on the other hand entering a $2.7bn joint investment with them. How can you trust a tax evader?

DadaKopf wrote:

Emmigration to Miami is caused by rich Venezuelans who want to take the country's capital stock and savings and investment capacity. Chavéz isn't driving them out, they just don't want to share their money. It's an attitudinal thing. Venezuelan political cleavages are based on race and class divisions - these cleavages are the things that are influencing this capital flight, which any sensible macroeconomist would tell a president to stop.

People are leaving because they see no future in their home country only more economic delinquency from their populist president who has only re-election at any cost on his agenda.

The problem with Chavez is that he won't listen to legitimatley appointed President of the Venezeulan Central Reserva; what chance do you think there is of him listening to another sensible economist?

democrates

Thomond Pk wrote:

I don't know how you can draw that opinion of three financial facts;

Central reserve looted of $5,000,000,000
Tax evasion charge $140,000,000
PPP with company under charge $2,700,000,000

A dogma is generally considered to be an ideology based on theory and not legal events unlike arguing in the absence of facts or direct experience of the situation or country under discussion.

I'm now leaning towards 'propaganda'.

You insist on using the term 'looting' which means theft, but where's the evidence that he's taking that money for himself?

That money is the property of the people of Venezuela and must be used for their benefit. Of course the funds depletion makes the economy less stable from a macro-economic perspective, but if it's being spent to boost growth at the micro-economic level it can be seen as a calculated balance of risk, more risk now, but less in the future.

Rather than playing the Irish game of going all out to be investor friendly and banking heavily on growth that way, he's not happy with the performance of global capital in his country in the past, and neither are the people. Hence he's focussed on indiginous growth as a top priority.

But he's not gone to the extreme, quite the contrary, he knows venezuela can do better with Shell than without. So while he's insisting that they pay their dues instead of letting them cheat on their taxes, he's still willing to cut a deal, but on fair terms. There's no contradiction here, both moves are strongly in the best interests of the people.

You keep avoiding the point, Shell are in there cutting a deal for themselves voluntarily, because they can still make profits in a deal with Chavez. If there were some contradiction with paying their taxes, Shell could equally be accused.

LazyDaisy, I'd take the accounts of those opposed to Chavez with a grain of salt. It's a bit like believing what one Irish political party says about another, or what IBEC says about unions.

His opposers may say he thinks he's like castro (mind-readers now?), but that doesn't square with the fact that Castro has clamped down on enterprise whereas Chavez is setting up worker co-operatives in abandoned factories and farmland all over the place, he's pro-enterprise, but it's enterprise by and for the people.

His democracy in the workplace initiative is particularly inspiring, and it's the spectre of people making a living without investors getting a cut that really has the puppet politicians of big money squawking.

Thomond Pk

democrates wrote:

I'm now leaning towards 'propaganda'.

You insist on using the term 'looting' which means theft, but where's the evidence that he's taking that money for himself?

I didn't accuse him of embezelment which is what you are describing, looting can reasonably mean disregard for due authority and the taking of something that is not under your control in the absence of normal controls.

Whether the money is deposited or used to buy an election it is still a serious breach of the principal of seperation of powers which are designed to prevent totalitarianism.

democrates wrote:

That money is the property of the people of Venezuela and must be used for their benefit. Of course the funds depletion makes the economy less stable from a macro-economic perspective, but if it's being spent to boost growth at the micro-economic level it can be seen as a calculated balance of risk, more risk now, but less in the future.

I don't accept that, the President of the Central Reserve is the only person qualified to make that call and was over-ruled so that Chavez can buy the next election. This happened in Ireland in 1977 with crazy tinkering with the state finances leading to an inflationary bubble and bust that wasn't solved for 17 years.

democrates wrote:

Rather than playing the Irish game of going all out to be investor friendly and banking heavily on growth that way, he's not happy with the performance of global capital in his country in the past, and neither are the people. Hence he's focussed on indiginous growth as a top priority.

His solution is to drive the major players and High Net Worth Individuals's out of the country;taking all the resources and management expertise with them. The only thing that has prevented a full scale melt-down has been the oil spike; if oil falls below $40 per barrell Venezeula's economy will be in serious trouble and there will be no external capital willing to deal in that country.

democrates wrote:

But he's not gone to the extreme, quite the contrary, he knows venezuela can do better with Shell than without. So while he's insisting that they pay their dues instead of letting them cheat on their taxes, he's still willing to cut a deal, but on fair terms. There's no contradiction here, both moves are strongly in the best interests of the people.

You keep avoiding the point, Shell are in there cutting a deal for themselves voluntarily, because they can still make profits in a deal with Chavez. If there were some contradiction with paying their taxes, Shell could equally be accused.

I don't go for this at all; he is simply rewarding tax evasion with a juicy $2.7bn contract. In Ireland Shell couldn't tender because they would not have a valid C2 cert.

democrates wrote:

LazyDaisy, I'd take the accounts of those opposed to Chavez with a grain of salt. It's a bit like believing what one Irish political party says about another, or what IBEC says about unions.

His opposers may say he thinks he's like castro (mind-readers now?), but that doesn't square with the fact that Castro has clamped down on enterprise whereas Chavez is setting up worker co-operatives in abandoned factories and farmland all over the place, he's pro-enterprise, but it's enterprise by and for the people.

Why should we take what is said about this politician with a grain of salt?
Chavez is more comparable to Castro than any other politician globally with the exception of possibly Mugabe. If you want a good comparable model try LuLa or Kirchener in Argentina.
In his foreign Chavez is directly to Catro and has cost Bolivia a President and had a significant destabalising role in both Columbia and Equador.

democrates wrote:

His democracy in the workplace initiative is particularly inspiring, and it's the spectre of people making a living without investors getting a cut that really has the puppet politicians of big money squawking.

All great in theory but where are the results Venezeula is poorer than when he took office despite oil prices rising nearly 300% over the period; Venezeula should be booming like the other producers of a similar scale.

Instead it is heading for further decline