Venezuela, Hugo Chavez

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Hobbes-

I've gone back and read through the thread and from what I can see you demand everyone back up what they say with facts and threads but never do the same to support your own hot air.

Anywhere I have made claims and people have asked me to back them up I have done so. Anywhere I haven't done this please point this out and I will be happy to go find the information again or retract what I said.

Can you do the same?

Just to educate you a little, Katrina victims did not die because they couldnt turn on their airconditioners

I have no clue what you are talking about? Prehaps you can either use context or stay on topic.

The southern states get cold in the winter and temperatures drop at night. Much of the heating is electricity and not oil run.

And how do you power the electricity stations?

Im not supplying you with scanned birth records and proof of address for you either.

I don't recall ever asking for them. What is your point?

Remember that web info is still virtual.

Incidents are normally verified by witnesses, and documented. That documentation either finds its way to the web from there you can use cross references to determine if what the person is saying is true or not.

Someone saying that thier friend knows something has no true merit of reliable information, and as pointed out of others they have shown that you have been wrong in this regard (they did the research for you). I think your only real issue is you believe what you are told without actaually checking for yourself.

For example if you were ever to give me a source to go read up on (which you haven't to date) then using that source I would cross-reference it to find other sources to determine if it is

a) true
b) reflective of what happened

You are in no credible position to comment on how intelligent my friends are

Absolutly correct, and neither are you. Anyone on a webboard can claim anything. Hence the reason why it is in the politics forum charter that you back up your accusations (even if found out to be flawed afterwards) with links to places people can check.

Like I said you don't have to try and convince me, but if you want to be convincing it is better to be so by anything other then hearsay.

Now I'm off this.. back on topic. If you wish to keep discussing the merits of hearsay vs reports/reporters feel free to do so by PM, or prehaps Media forum.

I have two points to make, anyone want to comment.

1. Did the BBC program air yet? If so where are the Q+A?

2. HRW mention issues with Prisons, media libal laws and police corruption. Are these the result of chavez or an existing issue?

democrates

lazydaisy wrote:

...Here are reports from Amnesty International
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-ven/index

There are many many more if you are still unconvinced.

I'm not inclined to accept without question what I read on the other websites you gave links for, many are owned by the private western media and can be expected to push the washington consensus, while those set up with the word 'crisis' in their domain name can hardly be seen as objective, clearly partisan agendas can be at work there, for either side of the conflict in fact.

Some material from The Club of Rome: Venezuela today: a personal view By María Ramírez Ribes(pdf) and The Venezuelan Paradox By Heinz R. Sonntag(pdf) also paint a bleak picture, but then what are the authors agendas? And should I take this znet pro-Bolivarian Circles article at face value?

The overall BBC coverage does not have the same tone as the others, while I'm willing to accept they may be somewhat removed, I don't think they have a bad record of journalistic integrity.

Your Amnesty link caught my eye, but when I read through the Urgent Action reports most of them were about one opposition family.

Then here's an extract from the Amnesty article A year on - Face the facts:

Background
Economic, social and political tensions led to an indefinite strike on 9 April by supporters of the opposition, an alliance built around the business sector, the principal trade union and private media interests, who demanded the immediate resignation of President Chávez.

On 11 April, a mass opposition demonstration met pro-government protesters in the vicinity of the presidential palace. As demonstrators, Metropolitan Police, National Guard clashed, 20 people died as a result of gunshot wounds, and over 60 others were injured. In the ensuing crisis, senior military officials forced President Chávez from power and placed him in detention.

Following the Coup d’Etat, a de facto joint civilian-military administration was established under the opposition leader Pedro Carmona, head of the Employers Association, FEDECAMARAS. The de facto government issued draconian decrees, inclusing the closure of the National Assembly, and the summary dismissal of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the Human Rights Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo). Police carried out raids on a number of homes of supporters of President Chávez. Amongst those arbitrarily detained were a Minister and a National Assembly deputy.

There was widespread condemnation of the unconstitutional and summary removal of President Chávez, the illegal detention of his supporters, and the arbitrary powers assumed by the de facto government. This, coupled with the increasingly determined efforts of President Chávez’s followers to secure his release and return to power, led to the resignation of the new government and reinstatement of President Chávez on 14 April.

The civil disturbance during these four days left at least 50 people dead and many more wounded. The government and opposition have continually accused each other of masterminding the violence for political advantage over the last year.

Political violence has also continued throughout the last year, resulting in the deaths of a number of pro and anti-government demonstrators and has repeatedly threatened further disintegration in the rule of law and human rights protection. In December 2002 the opposition called a second indefinite national stoppage which continued to February 2003. Social tension and political violence escalated in the context of the strike, which had a dramatic impact on the economy.

Negotiations between government and opposition have continued throughout the year under the stewardship of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, César Gaviria. A group of "friendly counties" was also established to facilitate this process and help find a negotiated solution to the political crisis.

It's seems a most regrettable story and I have genuine compassion for innocent victims.

But it must be acknowledged that there seems to be two sides to this, it's disingenuous to try to characterise the problems and reported human rights abuses as all on one side.

Also, Chavez is not paranoid, the opposition and foreign elements who have far from clean hands are out to get rid of him, they tried already and temporarily succeeded. How far they may go to do so is not something I'd be calm about in his shoes.

So I can see that aspect of the motivation for the Bolivarian Circles. In Switzerland everyone does military service and are encouraged to keep a gun in their homes, while the USA has "the right to keep and bear arms". The Swiss also have the best democracy in the world.

While BC proponents say the government is not in control, that it's local participatory democracy and involves community work, they also say they have to defend, and be true to the principles of, the Bolivarian Revolution. And Hugo comes on TV every week and outlines what the Bolivarian Revolution is all about.

[FONT=verdana, arial, geneva, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=verdana, arial, geneva, helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1][FONT=ms sans serif, helvetica, arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]I'd like to think it's like the 'fireside chats' of Roosvelt on the new deal, but the concern is that with Hugo's robust temperament it could get out of hand in places with radical or corrupt elements using it as a flag of convenience. Ultimately, without dependable evidence it's impossible to guage the overall track record of BC's so far with certainty.

But I'm encouraged by a lot of what I've read, it has the hallmarks of something genuinely good. If he were just out for power why make such efforts on practical initiatives to empower the people? Dictators focus on absolute military and state police control to protect themselves and keep the people in check, but the actions of Chavez on democratic worker co-operatives and Bolivarian Circles don't fit with this type of label, because he has empowered the people to get rid of him in the event that he fails to deliver.
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

DadaKopf

Actually, what I'm concerned about and what I genuinely hope doesn't happen - that the Chavez administration's (I actually don't like personifying governments/regimes because we're not really talking about one man - I do the same with Bush) economic policies, despite good signs nationally and regionally, will be delegitimised along with the next economic downturn.

Yes, the opposition to the Bolivarian revolution, the US and TNCs have tried to destabilise this already, but they've begun to realise there's nearly only one game in town, now.

Venezuelan politics is so strongly tied to economic performance that once the economy begins to falter, things might go horribly wrong. A socio-economist's or political scientist's explanation of this is that structural inefficiencies and institutional inflexibilities magnify the effects of normal economic downturns because they find it harder than other countries to adapt public policy and private capital to new pressures.

I still think this is a major problem in Venezuela. The administration is attempting to tackle corruption, and because it's so endemic, it's very hard to do. Interesting that Chavez' use of the military in his Missions in order to bypass buraucratic obstacles and corruption has had the effect of making the bureaucracy more efficient and cost-effective. Hopefully also more flexible. The government has also proven itself flexible in its macroeconomic policy.

I think the real underlying problem that produces this magnifying effect is the racially-based class cleavage where wealth is concentrated on a tiny minority. The only way to tackle this is to empower the poor, which, from a regime's point of view can be very problematic and unattractive.

He's big into microfinance as well as institutional reform. There's a big piece about microfinance in this week's Economist.

democrates

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Good report overall from Export Development Canada :

Dominique Bergevin, EDC Political Risk Analyst for South America, cautions, "The investment environment is uncertain and politicized. Government intervention figures among the principal risks of doing business in Venezuela."

[/FONT] No surprise, Chavez isn't singing the investor-friendly song as loud as Canadas TNC's would like, lo, Shell will even have to pay their taxes! But Chavez hasn't expelled them, he knows he needs them and is negotiating fairer deals.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Canada's reputation as a responsible global citizen and its ability to offer technology and services that equal American quality is a significant marketing tool," notes Hruby. "Whatever one may think of his political agenda, Chávez has set admirable goals for eradicating social inequity and overcoming income disparity." [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Venezuela has been down the boom and bust road before. Popular dissatisfaction with old models of resource exploitation has enabled Chávez to assume a leadership role in promoting social change. With a cycle of commodity prices once more favouring Venezuela, the nation has a fresh opportunity to make changes that bring lasting benefits.[/FONT]

Canada clearly cosying up to capitalise on the mis-steps of others. That article represents a base for negotiations. They're giving Chavez some much needed puplic words of support but at the same time letting him know they want his assurances they can cut deals and expect no surprises later.


And given the relentless uncertainty in the middle-east combined with the escalating global oil demand, I think you can rest easy dadaKopf that the oil price will probably stay in Venezuelas favour. Even if it doesn't, his weekly broadcasts may have reached the tipping point so that enough hearts and minds will ride out temporary setbacks. We'll see if it happens I guess.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

tallus

Thomond Pk wrote:

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.

Aren't dictators self appointed? i thought Chavez was democratically elected?

Thomond Pk

So was Hitler

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

So was Hitler

Congradulations you loose. (If you were going for a godwin)

I don't recall Hitler being democratically voted in twice, or allowing a refrendum to determine if he should stay in power or not and win it. Come to think of it technically Hitler was not voted into power. True his party got a majority but he was appointed his position by Hindenburg after firing Schleicher who tried to call emergency powers to postphone the election. In the elections after that only got 43% of the vote.

Hitler also suspended any further elections (something which Chavez has not).

But then you knew that right? I think you might have a better chance of demonizing him by comparing him to Vlad the Impaler. Although I can't remember if he was democratically elected or not.

Oh you have yet to ask me what I posted that you needed clarified on. Please feel free to do so if you think I am purposely not doing it. K. Thx.

democrates

Hobbes wrote:

I think you might have a better chance of demonizing him by comparing him to Vlad the Impaler. Although I can't remember if he was democratically elected or not.

I voted for kronos.

Thomond Pk, any chance of explaining how Shell being in there negotiating fits with your analysis, and on top of that now the Export Development Canada position? I was expecting a response to the Shell question along the lines of 'The USA armed Saddam, so just because there's trade that doesn't mean the leader is good or that the country will prosper'.

But the EDC position is a lot more positive than could be diplomatically risked if Canada really believed he was a dictator ruining the country. How does the continued TNC interest in and strategic engagement with Venezuela square with your description of a dictatorial Chavez driving out all investors?

tallus

I apologise actually.... it was a cheap shot but so was your answer.

Hobbes

Omg does this man have no shame... Clearly being a disruptive force :rolleyes: Can't wait to see how this is spun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4461946.stm

DadaKopf

That's cool! Massechusetts can be quite progressive sometimes, like the time they banned trade between Massechusetts and Burma. Then it was repealed because it broke federal law governing external trade relations.

Hobbes

Here is his Q+A with the BBC. Worth watching.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4350254.stm

The interviewer is clearly trying to trick him up on words. He (Chavez) seems to able to beat him on this discussion.

Sand

I don't recall Hitler being democratically voted in twice, or allowing a refrendum to determine if he should stay in power or not and win it. Come to think of it technically Hitler was not voted into power. True his party got a majority but he was appointed his position by Hindenburg after firing Schleicher who tried to call emergency powers to postphone the election. In the elections after that only got 43% of the vote.

Semantics, Thom didnt say he got a majority, he said he was also elected (into power presumeably). Which he was. The point being made is that dictatorships sometime develop from military coups, and sometimes from charismatic populism. Chavez, has incidentially tried and failed to lead a military coup, and is currently trying option 2.

Hitler also suspended any further elections (something which Chavez has not).

Egypt has presidential elections. I dont know if Id include it as a model of democracy.

But then you knew that right? I think you might have a better chance of demonizing him by comparing him to Vlad the Impaler. Although I can't remember if he was democratically elected or not.

Lets be honest here Hobbes, the only way he could be demonised in your eyes is if he was good friends with Bush. I mean Bush hasnt set up militias to deal with domestic political opposition, but clearly this is a failing on Bushs part. Chavez leads the way! Only despite his people being so poor hes off wasting time and money with Walter Mitty fantasies and pouring money into arms deals. But thats probably fine, he slags off Bush which is clearly more important.

Omg does this man have no shame... Clearly being a disruptive force Can't wait to see how this is spun.

Chavez putting you ahead of his people? People in Venezeula are poorer than people in Massechusetts, but its a giggle to see a poor nation like Veneuzela offering aid to the US. Im sure people in Mass. dont mind, they get cheaper fuel. But the people in Veneuzla, the poor, poor, poor people Chavez apparently champions lose 40% of the income from those oil sales. All for ****s and giggles. Money well spent if youre in Ireland I suppose.

BTW, how exactly do you spin a political stunt? Isnt it practically spin to begin with?

democrates

Sand wrote:

Egypt has presidential elections. I dont know if Id include it as a model of democracy.

Agreed, you can have all the elections you want but then the representatives may fail to represent. With Swiss Democracy the voters in local cantons can decide local laws as well as elect local government, they can also vote on federal government representatives and laws, even propose measures for the country to vote upon.

Chavez has been promoting Bolivarian Circles, local community groups who it is said, decide on local issues as well as setting up micro-finance, community schemes etc.

Sand wrote:

People in Venezeula are poorer than people in Massechusetts, but its a giggle to see a poor nation like Veneuzela offering aid to the US. Im sure people in Mass. dont mind, they get cheaper fuel. But the people in Veneuzla, the poor, poor, poor people Chavez apparently champions lose 40% of the income from those oil sales. All for ****s and giggles. Money well spent if youre in Ireland I suppose.

The Venezuelans are doing a lot better from oil now than they were when the corporate puppets ruled. But not Equador, the World Bank insist that 90% of it's oil revenues go to service debt. Compare and contrast.

The World Bank and IMF prescriptions have been totally debunked, the bodies themselves were forced to admit as much under the spotlight after their poison triggered the global financial crisis in 97-98, they also had to recognise the ruination of those they are 'helping', yet they continue on as before now the spotlight has removed.

Their pitch is always the same: "Borrow money, we won't watch what you do with it because we're trusting, but we'll complain loudly about corruption when that combined with our measures make your situation worse.

Repay the debt before any other spending or we'll tell everyone, that will frighten FDI away and short-sellers will cripple your currency making dollar debt repayments tougher. Cut back on health, education, and infrastructure, anything that would make you more competitive.

Privatise any profitable state assets allowing foreign investors to buy at a knock-down price and let them charge what they like, water is good, anything the people can't live without. Keep repeating, "FDI is a measure of our success".

Open your commodity markets to competition at prices artificially lowered due to rich countries export subsidies. When masses of your farmers can no longer afford to survive, set up export processing zones so our corporations can save them with dollar a day jobs. Be investor-friendly, let us pollute as much as we like.

Don't bother trying to export high value finished products of your own, we can't allow your cheap labour to dump on our fragile markets, that's why rich nations have high import tariffs on these items if they come from poor countries.

Your remaining farmers must industrialise to be competitive in the holy global marketplace. They must licence patented GM turbo-crops and pesticides from us, and when the soil is turbo-depleted of nutrients you can buy our patented artificial fertilisers. Enforce IP rights ruthlessly or else.

When the contaminated food and EPZ pollution makes your people ill you can buy our patented drugs. All of this will cost money so you need to borrow more, then repeat as above only more vigorously as you didn't really do it right the first time, though it was a step in the Right direction."

How can anyone be surprised. Both organisations are based in Washington DC (at the insistence of Harry Dexter White at the Bretton Woods conference), the USA has exclusive blocking votes in both, nothing can get through without their consent.

Combined with their veto on the UN security council, military and economic hegemony, the world order has been little more than the washington consensus. Only now the worst victims have woken up to the wicked game, China and India are in the ascendancy and they know sh1t from shinola. Change is inevitable, this will not be an American century, an optimist would hope it will end up a century of we, the peoples of earth.

Chavez appeals to the people, and that makes tactical sense to me. Much of the western worlds media engage in selective reporting (propaganda), so to try to put the record straight and promote awareness around the world he extends a hand of friendship to other people as opportunity knocks, and deliberately makes controversial statements on the world stage.

Despite the stunning lack of media attention to the substance of the venezuelan enterprise and their exclusive focus on half-reporting any Chavez controversy, he manages to stoke enough interest that people seek more information. Once they do that he's a chance of winning support "the truth shall set you free".

It gives him that little extra protection by making it more difficult for external powers to use their version of reality as cover for interference. It also challenges open-minded people to rethink the western capitalist ideology and look again at co-operation.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Chavez putting you ahead of his people? People in Venezeula are poorer than people in Massechusetts,

Did you watch the BBC Q+A with him? Its quite intresting. He points out that the country is actually making more money in the last few years then before he came into power. That poverty has dropped dramatically. Yes there is still extreme poverty there, but no where near the figure it once was.

The documentry is quite intresting as the reporter has the same mentality as you. Chavez certainly answers the questions. There are some that are not going to go down well regardless (eg. Wants socalism, likes Iran/Castro, wants nuclear power) but certainly clears up a lot of the BS that people are going on with.

Btw, most countries have a milita? How exactly are you spinning that as a bad thing?

DadaKopf

Sand wrote:

Chavez putting you ahead of his people? People in Venezeula are poorer than people in Massechusetts

But Venezuelans are getting less poor. *Ahem*.

Sand

Bolivarian Circles, local community groups

Chavez groups tbh.

The Venezuelans are doing a lot better from oil now than they were when the corporate puppets ruled

Oils a lot more expensive now, which has more to do with China and India than it has to do with Chavez or Corporate puppets ( viva la revolution!)

The World Bank and IMF prescriptions have been totally debunked,

Oh christ....must not get sucked in....fight....must not get into argument with someone who use a site that has sidebar with links to "Empire" and "Iraq".

Look, the reason Argentina collapsed is because it lived beyond its means and it pegged the peso to the US dollar - for good reason, Argentine inflation was 200% a month in the late 1980s - to combat hyperinflation in the early 90s. This was good as far as it went - the BRL collapsed in 1999, this is unsurprisingly a major trade partner of Argentina, and Argentinas exports to Brazil became far, far more expensive. Less cash from exports, less money to budget, government devalues currency to increase exports, investors investment now worth far less (due to collapse in exchange rate to dollar) than when they invested, investment flight, far less money to budget, devalue currency to increase exports, ad nauseum.....

You blame the IMF for telling them fixing their currency to a respected currency is a bad idea? This is the *only* way to break the cycle of hyperinflation bar inventing an entirely new currency. You blame the IMF for telling them *not* to borrow more, to look at their budget and be frank about what they can and cannot afford? Borrowing makes sense in terms of paying for infrastructure and investment, it is downright stupid in terms of just paying for an unbalanced budget.

At the end of the day, Argentinas income could not meet its outgoings and thats as simple as that. It had the 90s to rationalise its budet, but it chose to borrow instead. Its no mystery that Ireland emerged from a basket case economy in the 1980s after a decision to be brutal in terms of cutbacks to a budget that could not be afforded.

Their pitch is always the same: "Borrow money, we won't watch what you do with it because we're trusting, but we'll complain loudly about corruption when that combined with our measures make your situation worse.

Dear god - when the IMF puts strict conditions on what governments can do with loans its called neo-imperialism by those damned neo cons/liberlals. And when they dont, theyre blamed for the corruption. Just cannot win.

Don't bother trying to export high value finished products of your own, we can't allow your cheap labour to dump on our fragile markets, that's why rich nations have high import tariffs on these items if they come from poor countries.

Blame developed world unions for that. I mean, arent evil globalised corporations stealing our jobs and sending them to ****holes to exploit the poor workers? Are the evil capitalists playing both sides of the game now? Stealing jobs AND stopping jobs from going abroad?

Chavez appeals to the people, and that makes tactical sense to me. Much of the western worlds media engage in selective reporting (propaganda), so to try to put the record straight and promote awareness around the world he extends a hand of friendship to other people as opportunity knocks, and deliberately makes controversial statements on the world stage.

Yeah hes reinvented economics. I must not invoke Godwins law with reference to another people's champion who reinvented economics in the 30s.

"the truth shall set you free".

It might, but some people are determined to blind themselves to reality.

Did you watch the BBC Q+A with him? Its quite intresting. He points out that the country is actually making more money in the last few years then before he came into power. That poverty has dropped dramatically. Yes there is still extreme poverty there, but no where near the figure it once was.

Oil prices wouldnt have anything to do with that would they?

Btw, most countries have a milita? How exactly are you spinning that as a bad thing?

Its clearly not a bad thing Hobbes, there are dirty counter revolutionaries out there, all on the cia payroll, who need to be crushed before they can endanger la revolution! Viva El Presidente Chavez!

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Oils a lot more expensive now, which has more to do with China and India than it has to do with Chavez or Corporate puppets ( viva la revolution!)

The oil increases are not part of Chavez doing. However again he mentions in the documentry that Oil is not the only revenue they have been getting from businesses.

He was also responsible for trying to put a cap on oil prices and is currently canvessing to get a new oil cap which is much lower then the market rates.

You also go on about how it is a bad thing that he sells the oil cheap to the poor, yet it is a bad thing he sells the oil at the market prices. What to you then is the right thing?

Its clearly not a bad thing Hobbes, there are dirty counter revolutionaries out there, all on the cia payroll, who need to be crushed before they can endanger la revolution! Viva El Presidente Chavez!

Do you have any proof/sources to back that up? Even the link you posted earlier doesn't suggest he is doing that at all (only that the people who complain about him are claiming may happen).

Sand

The oil increases are not part of Chavez doing.

That would be my point.

You also go on about how it is a bad thing that he sells the oil cheap to the poor, yet it is a bad thing he sells the oil at the market prices. What to you then is the right thing?

Its not a bad thing he sells oil at market prices, where did I say it was? What I object to is the idea that because oil prices have risen due to circumstances far out of the control of Chavez, he deserves credit for an oil exporting nation increasing its income from those exports. Putins centralised power comes from his control of the Russian oil industry which has also been a real money maker over the past few years? Should we be crediting Putin for increasing his take from oil exports?

Do you have any proof/sources to back that up? Even the link you posted earlier doesn't suggest he is doing that at all (only that the people who complain about him are claiming may happen).

Prove what exactly Hobbes? That there are dirty CIA funded counter revolutionaries out there and Chavez needs good, loyal, politically sound defenders of the revolution to stop them, that the militia needs to support Chavez over and beyond anything else because Chavez is his peoples only hope? Isnt that what the Pro-Chavez types claim? Why Chavez is putting money into arms deals over and beyond building schools for the poor of the slums? That anyone who doesnt support Chavez is a corrupt corporate lackey of Bush or something similiar?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Why Chavez is putting money into arms deals over and beyond building schools for the poor of the slums?

Do you have the exact figures on both of them? Been trying to find them, sound like you know.

Here is what I Did find

http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2005/07/17/chavez_military_moves_eyed/

In May, Chavez's government announced details of an $18.6 million deal with a Russian firm to purchase 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles, the modern update on the Kalashnikov, along with 30 rounds of ammunition each and the technology transfer for Venezuela to manufacture the rifles. The deal works out to $186.22 per rifle, considerably less costly than the US mail-order price of $825 to $850 for the same weapon.

Venezuela also intends to buy 10 Russian helicopters, 10 Spanish transport planes, and six Spanish naval craft, and is negotiating with Brazil to buy about two dozen air support and training planes, according to government officials.

Chavez has insisted -- and even his staunchest retired military critics here agree -- that the purchases are essential to update old weaponry, especially glaring in the case of the military's decades-old Belgian FAL rifles.

''We can't say Chavez is engaged in an arms buildup -- that's an exaggeration," said retired General Fernando Ochoa Antich, who was defense minister in 1992 when then-Lieutenant Colonel Chavez launched a failed coup. ''Venezuela hasn't purchased arms in 25 years, and he's not aggressively buying weapons in a way that would threaten his neighbors.

Now compare that to how much he has invested on his people? Or for that matter compare it with Columbia which is the most militarised country in South America (getting a military budget of 3.3 Billion from the US in the past 5 years)

wiseones2cents

I'm new to this board and do not haver time to read all the posts but I will Add my 2 cents.

I support Hugo Chavez and Castro.

America doesn't Like Hugo Chavez because he does not want to be America's puppet. He resists American Imperialism. That is why America has been trying to organize coups, through CIA operatives(Which is common American practice)to over throw him.

Democracy to America does not mean elected Officails, elected by the people.
Which Chavez clearly is. America's idea of Democracy is using American tax payers dollars to fund criminal puppet leaders around the world, to be elected and serve American interests.

democrates

Sand wrote:

Chavez groups tbh.

Probably true, of course it's to be expected that Bolivarian Circles are in the main pro-Chavez, wealthy minorities tend not to support empowerment of the people.

Sand wrote:

Look, the reason Argentina collapsed is because it lived beyond its means and it pegged the peso to the US dollar - for good reason, Argentine inflation was 200% a month in the late 1980s - to combat hyperinflation in the early 90s. This was good as far as it went - the BRL collapsed in 1999, this is unsurprisingly a major trade partner of Argentina, and Argentinas exports to Brazil became far, far more expensive. Less cash from exports, less money to budget, government devalues currency to increase exports, investors investment now worth far less (due to collapse in exchange rate to dollar) than when they invested, investment flight, far less money to budget, devalue currency to increase exports, ad nauseum.....

You blame the IMF for telling them fixing their currency to a respected currency is a bad idea? This is the *only* way to break the cycle of hyperinflation bar inventing an entirely new currency. You blame the IMF for telling them *not* to borrow more, to look at their budget and be frank about what they can and cannot afford? Borrowing makes sense in terms of paying for infrastructure and investment, it is downright stupid in terms of just paying for an unbalanced budget.

At the end of the day, Argentinas income could not meet its outgoings and thats as simple as that. It had the 90s to rationalise its budet, but it chose to borrow instead. Its no mystery that Ireland emerged from a basket case economy in the 1980s after a decision to be brutal in terms of cutbacks to a budget that could not be afforded.

I blame the IMF for telling them to borrow more, for starters.

From http://www.imf.org/External/NP/ieo/2004/arg/eng/index.htm
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

The crisis resulted from the failure of Argentine policymakers to take necessary corrective measures sufficiently early, particularly in the consistency of fiscal policy with their choice of exchange rate regime. The IMF on its part erred in the precrisis period by supporting the country's weak policies too long, even after it had become evident in the late 1990s that the political ability to deliver the necessary fiscal discipline and structural reforms was lacking. By the time the crisis hit Argentina in late 2000, there were grave concerns about the country's exchange rate and debt sustainability, but there was no easy solution. Given the extensive dollarization of the economy, the costs of exiting the convertibility regime were already very large.
The IMF supported Argentina's efforts to preserve the exchange rate regime with a substantial commitment of resources, which was subsequently augmented on two occasions. This support was justifiable initially, but the IMF continued to provide support through 2001 despite repeated policy inadequacies. In retrospect, the resources used in an attempt to preserve the existing policy regime during 2001 could have been better used to mitigate at least some of the inevitable costs of exit, if the IMF had called an earlier halt to support for a strategy that, as implemented, was not sustainable and had pushed instead for an alternative approach.
...
[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Argentine crisis yields a number of lessons for the IMF, some of which have already been learned and incorporated into revised policies and procedures. This evaluation suggests ten lessons, in the areas of surveillance and program design, crisis management, and the decision-making process.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]IMF admitting error themselves. But predictably, the thrust of their self-analysis is that they were right in theory but in practice should have been tougher on Argentina.

Of course they fail to address the fact that IMF excessive lending and FDI policies increased Argintinas exposure to externalities drastically. Whatever chance they had before of weathering shocks, when the numbers get that big the risk of a catastrophic fall is far greater.

In addition, they publicly supported Argentina while, in acknowledgement that repayments of IMF loans were becoming untenable, they claim to have privately warned Argentina to be more austere (with their poor people of course, not their wealthy creditors). That public stamp of approval, that lie, allowed the stakes to climb ever higher.

When the crisis inevitably hit, IMF pulled the plug on further lending and sealed their fate. They could have said we're looking at a phased approach but no, repayments to the rich were at risk, so sudden death. After the crisis the IMF answer was "you haven't been austere enough with your people". The IMF's new package makes debt interest repayments top priority along with compensation for the banks and even greater austerity for the people.

Sand wrote:

Dear god - when the IMF puts strict conditions on what governments can do with loans its called neo-imperialism by those damned neo cons/liberlals. And when they dont, theyre blamed for the corruption. Just cannot win.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]It's more about the policy they are now more determined than ever to police. One of the biggest lies about is that the developed world became rich through free trade. In fact they protected their markets during the development phase, and only when they became strong enough did they insist on free trade with weaker countries but only in the markets they were then poised to dominate. The failure of the Doha round shows that the poor nations have copped on to this sick game, but the IMF continue trying.

Austerity measures mean cut spending on education, healthcare, micro-credit, local enterprise etc, anything that might build a healthy robust indiginous economy. The opening of markets to export-subsidy deflated prices reduces the amount of people in native employment, and increases their dependance on and exposure to FDI which is in turn based on investor confidence. Beprofit the rich man or face ruin.

The increased dependance of the people on welfare resulting from the loss of livelihood, and the governments action to address this and avoid a revolution is then referred to as 'institutional weakness' and 'lack of political will'.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT] I think Chavez is onto a much better strategy. Build up your local economy, only expose strong sectors to free trade, eg oil.

Sand wrote:

Blame developed world unions for that. I mean, arent evil globalised corporations stealing our jobs and sending them to ****holes to exploit the poor workers? Are the evil capitalists playing both sides of the game now? Stealing jobs AND stopping jobs from going abroad?[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]Farmers will try to protect their export subsidies and unions will try to protect jobs regardless of the damage abroad. This is symptomatic of the futility of all-out labour competition driven by a global structural mis-match: sovereign nations are being forced to compete for job-yielding global capital which is footloose and fancy free with no loyalty. Our votes count for nought, we are compelled to be investor friendly to survive, and are thus divided and conquored.

How long can Ireland compete with labour fom China and India? Will our kids be better employees than those from top universities from Bangalore to Shanghai?

Sand wrote:

Yeah hes reinvented economics. I must not invoke Godwins law with reference to another people's champion who reinvented economics in the 30s.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT] A better one was Keynes proposal at Bretton Woods for an International Clearing Union which would have balanced international trade and prosperity over time, but that was shot down by the American plan for the current system which yields an increasing gap between rich and poor. The World Bank and IMF are ostensibly remedial organisations, but in truth they just push debt and foreign investor dependance on poor countries, turn their self-employed farmers into employees or unemployed, and trick them into passing ownership of any profitable assets to global investors. It's Rip-Off Earth, but the worms are turning.

wiseones2cents

democrates wrote:

Probably true, of course it's to be expected that Bolivarian Circles are in the main pro-Chavez, wealthy minorities tend not to support empowerment of the people.


I blame the IMF for telling them to borrow more, for starters.

From http://www.imf.org/External/NP/ieo/2004/arg/eng/index.htm
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]IMF admitting error themselves. But predictably, the thrust of their self-analysis is that they were right in theory but in practice should have been tougher on Argentina.

Of course they fail to address the fact that IMF excessive lending and FDI policies increased Argintinas exposure to externalities drastically. Whatever chance they had before of weathering shocks, when the numbers get that big the risk of a catastrophic fall is far greater.

In addition, they publicly supported Argentina while, in acknowledgement that repayments of IMF loans were becoming untenable, they claim to have privately warned Argentina to be more austere (with their poor people of course, not their wealthy creditors). That public stamp of approval, that lie, allowed the stakes to climb ever higher.

When the crisis inevitably hit, IMF pulled the plug on further lending and sealed their fate. They could have said we're looking at a phased approach but no, repayments to the rich were at risk, so sudden death. After the crisis the IMF answer was "you haven't been austere enough with your people". The IMF's new package makes debt interest repayments top priority along with compensation for the banks and even greater austerity for the people.

[/SIZE][/FONT]It's more about the policy they are now more determined than ever to police. One of the biggest lies about is that the developed world became rich through free trade. In fact they protected their markets during the development phase, and only when they became strong enough did they insist on free trade with weaker countries but only in the markets they were then poised to dominate. The failure of the Doha round shows that the poor nations have copped on to this sick game, but the IMF continue trying.

Austerity measures mean cut spending on education, healthcare, micro-credit, local enterprise etc, anything that might build a healthy robust indiginous economy. The opening of markets to export-subsidy deflated prices reduces the amount of people in native employment, and increases their dependance on and exposure to FDI which is in turn based on investor confidence. Beprofit the rich man or face ruin.

The increased dependance of the people on welfare resulting from the loss of livelihood, and the governments action to address this and avoid a revolution is then referred to as 'institutional weakness' and 'lack of political will'.[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT] I think Chavez is onto a much better strategy. Build up your local economy, only expose strong sectors to free trade, eg oil.

[/SIZE][/FONT]Farmers will try to protect their export subsidies and unions will try to protect jobs regardless of the damage abroad. This is symptomatic of the futility of all-out labour competition driven by a global structural mis-match: sovereign nations are being forced to compete for job-yielding global capital which is footloose and fancy free with no loyalty. Our votes count for nought, we are compelled to be investor friendly to survive, and are thus divided and conquored.

How long can Ireland compete with labour fom China and India? Will our kids be better employees than those from top universities from Bangalore to Shanghai?

[/SIZE][/FONT] A better one was Keynes proposal at Bretton Woods for an International Clearing Union which would have balanced international trade and prosperity over time, but that was shot down by the American plan for the current system which yields an increasing gap between rich and poor. The World Bank and IMF are ostensibly remedial organisations, but in truth they just push debt and foreign investor dependance on poor countries, turn their self-employed farmers into employees or unemployed, and trick them into passing ownership of any profitable assets to global investors. It's Rip-Off Earth, but the worms are turning.

Very well said.

Hobbes

Just noticed this in the news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4482636.stm

Does anyone know what they mean as "Unfair"? The news report doesn't actually expand on it. Only that the opposition is quiting because it is unfair.

RedPlanet

"The poll on Sunday will be overseen by observers from the Organization of American States and the European Union."

Maybe the Opposition knows it will be beat, therefore they'll take no part so they can carry-on pretending the process was "unfair".

democrates

Hobbes wrote:

Just noticed this in the news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4482636.stm

Does anyone know what they mean as "Unfair"? The news report doesn't actually expand on it. Only that the opposition is quiting because it is unfair.

While I share reservations about e-voting, the reasons given for pulling out seem to be based on nothing more than opinion, and that assertion of the electoral bodies favouritism has been denied. If they could point to a smoking gun to support their case, I'm sure we'd hear about it.

On the other side, the claim that the US embassy is working with the opposition is not reported as having been denied. Could be weak reporting, ideally more facts will emerge, but given they still debate the coup...

Sand

Now compare that to how much he has invested on his people? Or for that matter compare it with Columbia which is the most militarised country in South America (getting a military budget of 3.3 Billion from the US in the past 5 years)

Sorry, I didnt state it clearly. I did not mean that he spent more on the military than on say building schools, but that he was spending on the military when the poor people in the slums are in the depths of depravity apparently.

Your link is interesting though.

''We can't say Chavez is engaged in an arms buildup -- that's an exaggeration," said retired General Fernando Ochoa Antich, who was defense minister in 1992 when then-Lieutenant Colonel Chavez launched a failed coup. ''Venezuela hasn't purchased arms in 25 years, and he's not aggressively buying weapons in a way that would threaten his neighbors.

Not threatening his neighbours? Might this arms buildup be for his political armed wing? Only a threat to his domestic opponents maybe. But shure, theyre all CIA agents anyway. Out of curiosity, how many soldiers are in the Venezeualan Army?

Probably true, of course it's to be expected that Bolivarian Circles are in the main pro-Chavez, wealthy minorities tend not to support empowerment of the people.

Why would anyone, wealthy or poor, join a party political movement whose leadership you disagree with? BTW, just how many millionaires live in Venezeula?

IMF admitting error themselves. But predictably, the thrust of their self-analysis is that they were right in theory but in practice should have been tougher on Argentina.

What would have been your corrective course of action for 200% per month hyperinflation? Oh right, a Bolivarian circle. Well apart from that, locking exchange rates with a more respected currency is pretty much the only way to do it. The only mistake the IMF made was not recognising the fixed exchange rate scheme had run its course, or rather that exiting it early would be better than exiting late, unfortunately thats the road down which command economics travels, believing human beings are infalliable and that governments can beat market forces.

When the crisis inevitably hit, IMF pulled the plug on further lending and sealed their fate. They could have said we're looking at a phased approach but no, repayments to the rich were at risk, so sudden death. After the crisis the IMF answer was "you haven't been austere enough with your people". The IMF's new package makes debt interest repayments top priority along with compensation for the banks and even greater austerity for the people.

What need was there for a phased approach when you argue that the collapse was well known in advance and easily avoided?

It's more about the policy they are now more determined than ever to police. One of the biggest lies about is that the developed world became rich through free trade. In fact they protected their markets during the development phase, and only when they became strong enough did they insist on free trade with weaker countries but only in the markets they were then poised to dominate. The failure of the Doha round shows that the poor nations have copped on to this sick game, but the IMF continue trying.

I dont have time to teach you economics. I will point out that the Great Depression was a time of feck all trade and an era when the idea of self sufficiency was all the rage. Great days so they were. Argentinas economic golden age came when it was heavily involved before the Great Depression in trade AFAIR

Austerity measures mean cut spending on education, healthcare, micro-credit, local enterprise etc, anything that might build a healthy robust indiginous economy. The opening of markets to export-subsidy deflated prices reduces the amount of people in native employment, and increases their dependance on and exposure to FDI which is in turn based on investor confidence. Beprofit the rich man or face ruin.

It means what I cant afford, I cant afford. Opening markets might put the local Aer Lingus out of business but it allows every other single business to get a cheaper service to carry out their business. Its weird you seem to feel the local greedy capitialist pigs have a god given right to screw over the local working class, but foreign captialist pigs cant offer the local working class a better service for better value. Not an internationalist then?

Farmers will try to protect their export subsidies and unions will try to protect jobs regardless of the damage abroad. This is symptomatic of the futility of all-out labour competition driven by a global structural mis-match: sovereign nations are being forced to compete for job-yielding global capital which is footloose and fancy free with no loyalty. Our votes count for nought, we are compelled to be investor friendly to survive, and are thus divided and conquored.

How long can Ireland compete with labour fom China and India? Will our kids be better employees than those from top universities from Bangalore to Shanghai?

Dear god. Corporations are by and large owned by mutual funds, which by and large are owned by ordinary people investing for their pensions. Of course they have no loyalty - theyre in it to make money for the people investing in them. Capitalists are real internationalists, not fair weather internationalists (not entirely true, local capitalists feeling the pinch from foreign competion whinge just as much about nationalism). Theyre not the Catholic Church, they look out for the interests of their owners as much as unions look out for their member - and theyre not mutually exclusive in a lot of cases. And unions are primarily to blame for blocks against 3rd world nations competing on an even playing field. So please dont blame corporations for that.

As for Irelands chances in the economic future, let me tell you what wont work. A tiny economy with no natural resources to speak of suddenly deciding "stop the world, I want to get off!" If anything is likely to happen its that the cost of living and thus labour in China and Ireland will converge as Chinese imports reduce our cost of living and Chinese development raises theres.

Does anyone know what they mean as "Unfair"? The news report doesn't actually expand on it. Only that the opposition is quiting because it is unfair.

Whats amazing is that Chavez hasnt got 2 thirds representation already - are we to believe that over a third of Veneuzelans are mega rich CIA agents?

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

but that he was spending on the military when the poor people in the slums are in the depths of depravity apparently.

Already covered in earlier posts through actual documentation and in the documentry. Does the country have extreme poverty. Yes. However that total has dropped significantly over the last few years. Yes he has more work to do but it is no where near as bad as it was before Chavez came into power.

Whats amazing is that Chavez hasnt got 2 thirds representation already - are we to believe that over a third of Veneuzelans are mega rich CIA agents?

You mean are you to believe. I asked people why they think it unfair as I could find no more information as to why. Any chance you know? Or you going to keep spouting fictional speculation.

democrates

Sand wrote:

Why would anyone, wealthy or poor, join a party political movement whose leadership you disagree with? BTW, just how many millionaires live in Venezeula?

No idea. No idea.

Sand wrote:

What would have been your corrective course of action for 200% per month hyperinflation? Oh right, a Bolivarian circle. Well apart from that, locking exchange rates with a more respected currency is pretty much the only way to do it. The only mistake the IMF made was not recognising the fixed exchange rate scheme had run its course, or rather that exiting it early would be better than exiting late, unfortunately thats the road down which command economics travels, believing human beings are infalliable and that governments can beat market forces.

Different measures apply over different timeframes. Building up your local economy is a wise long term strategy but the IMF dogma is contrary to this, being in favour instead of a huge gamble on debt ringfenced for investor-friendly projects, privatisation, FDI, and austerity for natives.

Yes, pegging the Peso to the Dollar was a quick-fix for hyperinflation which IMF only agreed to as part of an overall package, but when the dollar fell the 'extensive dollarization of the economy' thanks to IMF 'go large' policies meant the cost of exiting the convertibility regime had become untenable and a level of default was unavoidable. They should never have taken on that level of exposure given the dollar risk. Slow steady growth with a sound indiginous economy would be far preferable.

Sand wrote:

What need was there for a phased approach when you argue that the collapse was well known in advance and easily avoided?

It was potentially easily avoided had they ignored the IMF international gambling advice and not exposed their economy in such a big way in the first place. I'm not suggesting they would definitely have been prudent in the absence of the IMF, but they might have been. When it started to go horribly wrong, the IMF gambled that the dollar would recover and investors would retain confidence, that's why they made public endorsements, but it didn't come about in time.

The IMF claimed success while it appeared to work but when the true risk in this venture was exposed they cut the Argentinians loose instead of announcing a joint crisis handling initiative with step by step objectives. Even though I don't agree with the morals of IMF prescriptions, once they were down that road any plan would have been better than none, but no, they suddenly told the world Argentina had failed and this dealt them an unnecessary blow.

Sand wrote:

I dont have time to teach you economics. I will point out that the Great Depression was a time of feck all trade and an era when the idea of self sufficiency was all the rage. Great days so they were. Argentinas economic golden age came when it was heavily involved before the Great Depression in trade AFAIR

No need. I'm not arguing against international trade, just for fair trade and primary attention to your local economy. That means a balance between fair competition for strong sectors and protection for fledgling sectors. As an environmentalist I recognise the need for efficient production, and that so far globalisation of capital has delivered more of that than democracy. Nonetheless just because brute force works doesn't mean we have to accept it's downsides and avoid looking to enlighten and build international consensus, roll on Doha and KyotoII.

Sand wrote:

It means what I cant afford, I cant afford.

Agreed, aside, debt-driven consumerism is a rampant problem among the general populace let alone governments who seem easily hooked on spending other peoples money. Again I'm not trying to argue that Argentina would have done brilliantly if IMF had just stayed away, it's quite possible they had learned nothing from previous mismanagement of the economy, but their following of IMF prescriptions doesn't inspire my confidence.

They have another chance now. They can try the IMF game again and pray the magic "good for investors=good for the people" formula to parachute prosperity in works this time, or start to take sensible measures towards building a sustainable economy and on fair trade terms with Mercosur partners (soon to include Chavez) and other reasonable entities.

Sand wrote:

Opening markets might put the local Aer Lingus out of business but it allows every other single business to get a cheaper service to carry out their business.

Should Ireland have privatised Telecom Eireann? (Hint the government have had to get back into the market to catch up on broadband) Do mobile phone operators in Ireland compete? Have electricity prices fallen since the market was de-regulated? (Hint, potential competitors originally refused to enter the market until the regulator increased the price of electricity) Do toll-roads offer better strategic value? Should Dublin Bus be privatised, and an Post, and the water supply?

Private operators will focus investment in profitable areas, and sometimes drive down the price, but often prices go up. Even where some prices come down, other areas are often starved of investment because it's cherry-picking. That is a social cost which the taxpayer eventually must bear in order to rescue some level of social justice.

Trickle-down theory is just that, but too often in practice it's been 'privatise the profit and socialise the risk' as Noam Chomsky cunningly observed. I'm not all against investment, but the public/private argument has more to do with lack of freedom in the public sector, civil-servants aren't a sub-species, but their actions are a product of their environment.

Semi-states here on the other hand have had huge successes, and a public/private hybrid of that model is what Chavez is now nurturing with the oil sector. When the public sector is broke, fix it, don't just hand over the peoples assets.

Sand wrote:

Its weird you seem to feel the local greedy capitialist pigs have a god given right to screw over the local working class, but foreign captialist pigs cant offer the local working class a better service for better value. Not an internationalist then?

Indiginous enterprise that re-invests locally is preferable to foreigners who take earnings abroad. That's not going so far as an argument to ban FDI, but don't court it to such an extent that you're over-exposed to it's whims as your domestic productive capacity is neglected.

As for successful entrepreneurs, my #2 heros, far better than people sitting on their butts with a hand out looking for something for nothing. It falls to the employee/consumers to wake up and organise themselves into entreprenurial worker co-operatives and gain a fairer reward for their efforts. Within countries nothing is stopping people gaining such empowerment but ignorance and lack of self-belief.

democrates

Sand wrote:

Dear god. Corporations are by and large owned by mutual funds, which by and large are owned by ordinary people investing for their pensions. Of course they have no loyalty - theyre in it to make money for the people investing in them. Capitalists are real internationalists, not fair weather internationalists (not entirely true, local capitalists feeling the pinch from foreign competion whinge just as much about nationalism). Theyre not the Catholic Church, they look out for the interests of their owners as much as unions look out for their member - and theyre not mutually exclusive in a lot of cases.

Yes, they're mindless in pursuit of profit, that's their only ideology. True, even the Irish national pension fund has ignored cries against it's investments in big tobacco among others, they ignore those ethical considerations so that old people here will fare well in the future, still, that doesn't equal clean hands.

Besides, the existence of that portion of corporate ownership doesn't amount to a carte blanche for corporate behaviour in general. Here are a few examples of corporate crime for anyone interested but I'm sure there's no debate as to it's existence:
Gap and Nike - Made for children, by children
Coca Cola Shop stewards allegedly shot
Big Tobacco
Worldcom
Xerox
Global Crossing
Merrill Lynch
Tyco
Enron
Arthur Andersen
Nestle
To name but a few. Many of their crimes are ignored by mainstream western media, water, soil, air pollution etc. etc. etc. much worse than Shell's recent antics in Ireland.

I'm not arguing that all investors are evil, we'd all be wise to have investments and a pension fund, you don't have to read 'rich dad, poor dad' or 'the richest man in babylon' to get that, but large private investors as well as funds offer such great rewards to corporate boards who deliver, that they'll deliver regardless of the cost to others.

Corporations are powerful lobbies that governments have to listen to. Just recently Dell advised the government that if corporation tax were raised they'd have to reconsider their position. Microsoft and Intel have in the past let their Irish governance preferences be known publicly too, aside from what they say in private, and we all know what that means. Give them what they want or they're gone and we're done.

Yet I'm not arguing to get rid of them and shoot ourselves in the foot, but let's not kid ourselves about the power of our votes versus the power of investor dollars mediated by corporations. And why remain so exposed to their whims, let's build our local economy to stand on firm ground rather than the sand of fickle FDI and a non-infinite construction and consumer boom.

Sand wrote:

And unions are primarily to blame for blocks against 3rd world nations competing on an even playing field. So please dont blame corporations for that.

Excepting such as the textiles industry (owners and unions alike), it's farmers that are primarily perceived to support export subsidies and import tarrifs and quotas, as we see them on the streets.

Yet that perception is a half-truth. The Uruguay round was the rich nations reaction to international trade pressures, exacerbated by increased global competition for fdi. The preceding GATT measures have benefitted investors doubly as they gained free access to dump on LDC markets while the displaced poor farmers were compelled to work in TNC sweat shops to survive. The TNC's know exactly how these huge profits came to be in their accounts and how to get more, and to assume G8 politicians have not been lobbied by those private interests to push for these measures is imho, naive. And I won't hold my breath for sufficient action on the global compact.

Sand wrote:

As for Irelands chances in the economic future, let me tell you what wont work. A tiny economy with no natural resources to speak of suddenly deciding "stop the world, I want to get off!"

Agreed, it's not an option. But we'd be wise to build up our local economy given the growing risk of capital flight to competing nations. Even if we keep 12.5%CT and make headway in biotech and other reasearch, others are emulating. Are we some kind of master race who will continue to attract fdi based on superior education, or will we eventually have to compete on the price of labour? And when we fall behind in education and infrastructure?

Sand wrote:

If anything is likely to happen its that the cost of living and thus labour in China and Ireland will converge as Chinese imports reduce our cost of living and Chinese development raises theres.

In order to have faith in the equilibrium argument I'd need to believe that China and India cannot sustain and extend economic and military advantage once they gain it.

The rise of the USA since World War II suggests otherwise. The global order has allowed the gap to increase between rich and poor nations. But good news, the emerging brake on this trend is being applied through the WTO with the rest of the world insisting upon fair trade including Chavez, and hopefully they will overcome the usual green-room tactics of the rich countries.

Were the USA the most populous nation they might sustain their lead longer, but predictably in the long term advantage will accrue to nations pro-rata to their natural and human resources once they master global capitalism, but then this advantage will expand due to scale economies.

Therefore even equal trade relationships won't be enough if we are to move beyond a permanent international class divide. No fence is high enough if there is hunger and anger on the other side.

This is where a modified version of Keynes International Clearing Union could ultimately save the day, as it equalises the wealth of nations rather than allowing the rich to multiply their advantage at the expense of the poor. Cohesion funds and/or agreed distribution/backup of production are required if we are to achieve sustainable security, peace, and prosperity in future millenia.

While the macro-lens is out, nature will increasingly cap our activity. Infinite growth within a finite biosphere? We are set to bring avoidable catastrophe on our own heads, but we will survive. Sadly it is mans nature to learn more through pain than foresight but for all our follies I'm an optimist, because ultimately good ideas win out and hark, the insurance industry are already starting to squawk about sustainability.