Hugo Chavez dies aged 58

[OldBlueFan]

So you pot crime stats but happily regurgitate other stats from a source which you haven't even provided a link to.

I'm not potting crime stats, just their use by bigoted white males to cling to power by generating fear amongst the populace. Are you going to attempt to even dispute this obvious political tactic?

No link? I see your reading skills haven't improved any meds ... try scrolling up the page.

How does destroying the revenue from the state oil co help the poor? Riddle me that.

This is how:

• Reduced inequality by 54%;
• Poverty has been reduced from 70.8% (1996) to 21% (2010);
• Extreme poverty reduced from 40% (1996) to a very low level of 7.3% (2010);

Who cares if the revenue of the state oil company has had a reduction of 10, 20, even 30% if 100% of the revenue goes back to the government so that they can invest in the welfare of the VAST MAJORITY of the population? Oh that's right, you only give a shit about the pure economics of it ... people, health, education ... what do they matter?

What role did the right play in the decimation of the oil industry in Venezuela meds? You know, when they, along with their murderous allies in the US, decided to try to cripple the nation as a way of getting rid of Chavez?

 

[medusala]

I'm not potting crime stats, just their use by bigoted white males to cling to power by generating fear amongst the populace. Are you going to attempt to even dispute this obvious political tactic?

Conspiracy theory apologism.

No link? I see your reading skills haven't improved any meds ... try scrolling up the page.

Who cares if the revenue of the state oil company has had a reduction of 10, 20, even 30% if 100% of the revenue goes back to the government so that they can invest in the welfare of the VAST MAJORITY of the population?

Pointless arguing with you as you clearly have no idea of PDVSA nor of economics, you are simply regurgitating guff from lefty sites. That PDVSA were forced to vote for Chavez or lose their jobs is something that doesn't seem to bother you either. Twas for the good of the revolution I suppose.

Oh that's right, you only give a shit about the pure economics of it ... people, health, education ... what do they matter?

How do they get paid for? Money tree?

What role did the right play in the decimation of the oil industry in Venezuela meds?

Your mate kept selling them oil and they kept buying

What is your issue with coups? Hugo loved a good one, even if he wasn't successful.

Poor mans Castro.

 

[OldBlueFan]

That PDVSA were forced to vote for Chavez or lose their jobs is something that doesn't seem to bother you either.

What was that about conspiracy theories?

How do they get paid for? Money tree?

What's Venezuela's debt as a ratio of GDP compared to Europe and the US again meds?

What is your issue with coups? Hugo loved a good one, even if he wasn't successful.

Against a proven democratically elected government was it? Who's the apologist now?

Typical right-wing ideologue ... argue yourself into knots trying to validate your broken theories.

Not even the World Bank, that paragon of the left, tries to deny the inequality, health and education improvements in Venezuela. Meanwhile, in the US and Europe, these metrics are going in the opposite direction.

 

[medusala]

What was that about conspiracy theories?

Hardly a conspiracy. State companies were stacked with supporters and the press muzzled.

What's Venezuela's debt as a ratio of GDP compared to Europe and the US again meds?

Apples and pears. Its a petro country but still has a heap of debt. Not sure how accurate this paper is but sounds about right.

http://www.eluniversal.com/economia/130211/devaluation-raises-venezuelas-debt-burden-to-70-of-gdp

When the GDP is converted into US dollars, the total debt, after the devaluation, represents 70% of GDP, up 20 points compared to the level recorded with the exchange rate at VEB 4.30 per US dollar.

While this not an unmanageable debt-to-GDP ratio, it is no longer a comfortable level and triples the amount recorded in 2008.

Against a proven democratically elected government was it? Who's the apologist now?

Read the post. Chavez mounted a coup and failed. Was the government he tried to overthrow not elected?

 

[OldBlueFan]

Was the government he tried to overthrow not elected?

Not by the vast majority of Venezuelans, no. As proven by the landslide by which Chavez won as soon as true democracy arrived.

 

[blackcat]

Hardly a conspiracy. State companies were stacked with supporters and the press muzzled.

but how is a murdoch press a press for the people.

probs is chavez is in that double bind he got himself into by originally coming to power in the coup

the only country that will never have a coup is the US because there is no american embassy

 

[medusala]

but how is a murdoch press a press for the people.

The Sun. Daily circulation around 2.2m (Guardian has 200k)

Do the people not demand page 3 girls glistening like wet otters?

 

[blackcat]

good post meds

 

[Todman]

Irish packaging giant Smurfit Kappa has confirmed that its operations in inflation-battered Venezuela are the subject of a government "intervention".

The largest packaging group in the South American country, Smurfit Kappa's operations can now be targeted with additional inspections and audits covering areas such as tax, costs, pricing and employment practices.

Companies across the country, whose economy is in trouble despite massive oil resources, are being seized by the government as it tries to reverse the adverse impact of its own strident socialist policies.

Last month, a number of businesses and assets – domestic and foreign-owned – were put under government control. The businesses affected ranged from electronic stores to oil firms.

President Nicolas Maduro, who succeeded Hugo Chavez following his death this year, has accused firms of price gouging in an effort to deflect attention from an inflation rate running at an annualised 54pc and a lack of goods on shop shelves across the country.

Earlier this year, Venezuela devalued its currency, the Bolivar. That resulted in Smurfit Kappa recording a €142m reduction in the value of its net assets and a €28m reduction in the euro value of its group cash balances.

"The political situation in Venezuela is calm but challenging," Smurfit Kappa noted in its interim results last month.

"The economy continues to experience significant inflationary pressures and demand for scarce goods. As a result of the response to the shortages and the absence of one-off issues, the Group's converting operations are experiencing good demand growth."

The company previously said its operations in the country remained at continuing risk of being nationalised.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/venezuela-steps-up-pressure-on-smurfit-kappa-29803235.html

 

[placebo]

Shock Horror. Socialist nonsense once again proving how much of an utter failure it is. Shortages of basic goods, blackouts, ridiculous general price controls and controls on exchange, waiting lines for basic goods, the army taking over stores, human rights abuses, high levels of inflation…basically an economy that is only surviving because of their unique oil reserves. It's all well and good to try to implement short-term solutions to 'help' the poor, but when it causes you to **** your economy long-term, it doesn't really help anyone, now does it.

Chalk it up as another failure of Socialist nonsense; they'll eventually grow out of it, pass on the authoritarians and realise how a more open market can be so beneficial. Hopefully they realise sooner rather than later.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I won't post it all, but the following 2010 paper 'Containing Venezuela's Hugo Chavez: United States Foreign Policy Options' by Colonel Thomas J Roth contains some very interesting options regarding economic isolation, manipulation and, depending how you look at it, financial sabotage of the Venezuelan economy.

LINK: (cut and paste into browser) dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA543844

Direct Policy Options Towards Venezuela

... Although a charter member of the Organization of American States (OAS), the Obama Administration is reluctant to use the United States' dominant position in the OAS to directly challenge the Venezuelan Government.

The USG is also sensitive to its imperialistic reputation in Central and South America; a regional sympathy Chavez is quick to exploit.

Absent an unprovoked attack against the United States or one of its OAS allies, the USG is obliged to deal with Hugo Chavez and his government until he is voted or otherwise forced out of office. The USG should challenge President Chavez's domestic credibility and contain his influence in the region through direct and indirect applications of national power. An underlying premise to guide USG foreign policy is that Hugo Chavez threatens regional stability.

This threat is manifest in three areas. First, President Chavez intends to alter the balance of power through the purchase of offensively-capable weapons, and he is pursuing nuclear capability. Second, Chavez promotes confrontation between South American states. Finally, Chavez is increasingly autocratic and his actions, as discussed, inform his intent to seize permanent control of the Venezuelan Government.

The USG has limited, direct strategy options to influence the Chavez Government. Diplomatically, Hugo Chavez is unreceptive to improving relations. He recently rejected the USG's appointment of Larry Palmer to be the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, resulting in the USG expelling Venezuela's ambassador to the United States.

Although Chavez is careful to avoid complete severance of diplomatic ties, he actively pursues alternative alliances to marginalize U.S. influence in the region and to reduce Venezuela's dependency on the United States. Through his anti-American rhetoric, President Chavez has effectively painted himself into a corner, and he stands to lose credibility among his domestic and foreign allies if he changes his attitude towards the U.S. He needs the image of Yankee hegemony to detract from Venezuela's economic and social problems, and to justify his increasingly autocratic politics.

The use of military force to remove Hugo Chavez from office and dismantle the PSUV is a feasible, but unacceptable and unsuitable strategy for the USG. Absent a proximate cause or compelling, immediate threat to USG interests, a war of choice stands to erode the United State's credibility and long-term influence in South America...

...If the USG has any direct leverage over Venezuela, it falls within the economic and information instruments of power. Economic influence is double-edged and is tied primarily to oil. Arguably, the United States, with its propensity to consume oil and maintain a disproportionately high living standard, is its own worst enemy. For its part, Venezuela depends on oil exports to the United States, which accounted for 18.4% of Venezuela's GDP in 2009.

As previously addressed, President Chavez seeks to reduce Venezuela's economic dependence on the United States, but the United States and China are the only countries able to efficiently process Venezuela's highly sulfuric crude oil. Not surprisingly, the United States is vulnerable as it gets approximately 10% of its oil imports from Venezuela, and has no ready, alternative source to replace that quantity. If an alternative source could be found, or if the United States managed to significantly reduce oil consumption, USG-imposed oil sanctions offer a powerful tool to limit President Chavez's activities and diminish his power.

In June 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published an energy security report highlighting the political and economic effects resulting from a disruption of Venezuelan oil imports to the United States. According to the 2006 report, the United States economy stood to lose $23 billion (weighed against the country's $13 trillion GDP) and oil-based energy prices would rise approximately 20 percent. Although significant, the United States' economy is able to absorb an adverse economic condition like this; and the country could expand domestic output (Alaskan reserves) or negotiate greater imports from more reliable oil suppliers (Canada, Mexico).

For Venezuela, on the other hand, sustaining oil exports is a vital national interest; and the sudden loss of the United States as an oil customer is a direct threat to the Chavez Regime. As mentioned, oil exports account for approximately 90 percent of export earnings and 50 percent of government revenues. Of Venezuela's $337.3 billion 2009 GDP, the United States provided over $62 billion (18.4 percent).

Ostensibly, Venezuela could sell its oil to other consuming nations given a tight, international oil market. According to the GAO report however, Venezuela would have difficulty finding alternate markets for its “heavy sour” oil due to refining inefficiencies in other countries.

China, as the state most likely to supplant the United States market, has little economic incentive to purchase and transport Venezuelan crude given the availability of better quality and less expensive sources. Absent the United States buying Venezuela's oil, President Chavez would be severely challenged to sustain domestic largesse and to fund his social power foreign policies. Combined with Venezuela's 2.9 percent GDP contraction in 200937, USG-instituted oil sanctions could result in the economy's collapse and Chavez's removal from power...

...Information offers another powerful tool for the USG to weaken both Chavez's domestic political power and his relations with other South American states. The basic theme of a USG information campaign is that Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution are bad for Venezuela's people and for the country's future. As mentioned, Chavez's popularity is in decline as Venezuela's economy continues to weaken.

This situation, assuming Chavez respects the outcome of any future, unfavorable election results, may lead to his political undoing.

Failed socialist policies or not-so-friendly practices by a competing economic ideology? On a related matter I've long held the idea that the key U.S strategy to destroying socialist economies was to multiply threats, both perceived and actual, to get them to boost 'defence spending' to unmanageable proportions.

A capitalist-oriented system will therefore ALWAYS spend a socialist-oriented one into the ground.

The Cold War worry about 'missile gaps' and the like bankrupted the Soviet Union. The Contra War forced the Sandanista government in Nicaragua to channel much of it's struggling GDP into defence purchases in the 1980's.

What could have been a wildly successful socialist nation in Mozambique was destroyed by outside interests manipulating a civil war. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21655680)

Socialism largely fails because it does not have sufficient economic clout to survive sabotage from competing ideologies.

 

[Todman]

I like this line from the article;

"some may have viewed it as a temporary diversion, assuming that the march towards a classless society would resume in the near future."

 

[Gus Poyet]

Socialism fails because not all humans are the same nor want the same things in life.

 

[OldBlueFan]

Socialism largely fails because it does not have sufficient economic clout to survive sabotage from competing ideologies.

And when it does, or might, they simply send in the troops to kill a couple of million people. That soon puts an end to any of this socialist nonsense. See Indonesia and the replacement of Sukarno with Suharto.

That seemingly intelligent people in the West can willfully remain ignorant of the methods by which the monied class maintains it's position at the expense of the vast, VAST majority of humanity on this planet, proves that the truth is what the victors say it is.

 

[Gus Poyet]

That seemingly intelligent people in the West can willfully remain ignorant of the methods by which the monied class maintains it's position at the expense of the vast, VAST majority of humanity on this planet, proves that the truth is what the victors say it is.

So what is it when the communists use the military to maintain socialism? Because I think you'll find more people died died under their watch than under "the wests".

 

[medusala]

"Socialism largely fails because it does not have sufficient economic clout to survive sabotage from competing ideologies."

Yeah, nah - Autarky.

The US sabotaged Venezuela by importing its crude oil?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

"The US sabotaged Venezuela by importing its crude oil?

In this particular case, no. The U.S needs that oil, so sanctioning the oil would make little sense. The U.S changed tack a bit and refrained from the 'Cuban Embargo' tactic it employed decades previously. It is mindful now of the impression its actions have "in the 'hood". Did you read the stuff I posted?

...The USG is also sensitive to its imperialistic reputation in Central and South America; a regional sympathy Chavez is quick to exploit...

...If the USG has any direct leverage over Venezuela, it falls within the economic and information instruments of power. Economic influence is double-edged and is tied primarily to oil. Arguably, the United States, with its propensity to consume oil and maintain a disproportionately high living standard, is its own worst enemy. For its part, Venezuela depends on oil exports to the United States, which accounted for 18.4% of Venezuela's GDP in 2009.

As previously addressed, President Chavez seeks to reduce Venezuela's economic dependence on the United States, but the United States and China are the only countries able to efficiently process Venezuela's highly sulfuric crude oil. Not surprisingly, the United States is vulnerable as it gets approximately 10% of its oil imports from Venezuela, and has no ready, alternative source to replace that quantity. If an alternative source could be found, or if the United States managed to significantly reduce oil consumption, USG-imposed oil sanctions offer a powerful tool to limit President Chavez's activities and diminish his power. ...

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So what is it when the communists use the military to maintain socialism? Because I think you'll find more people died died under their watch than under "the wests".

I think a lot of the trouble lies in that socialism in those examples came about through violent revolution, and the resultant militarist governments are quick to believe that square pegs CAN fit into round holes if bashed hard enough.

Right-wing military governments were no less bloodthirsty - Suharto (Indonesia), Pinochet (Chile), Franco (Spain), Hitler (Germany), Salazar (Portugal), the Somozas (Nicaragua) among others.

 

[medusala]

Yes I did. The key thing he did to stuff the place was to ruin PDVSA (didn't see that in your article). Followed by land theft.

Also the USA isn't far off oil self sufficiency.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

He definitely should have handled PDVSA's operations a LOT better. It's Venezuela's single biggest asset and it provides for more than a third of its GDP - for the future of Venezuela it deserved and continues to deserve better treatment. Maduro might shake things up a little. I hope he does.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Shock Horror. Socialist nonsense once again proving how much of an utter failure it is. Shortages of basic goods, blackouts, ridiculous general price controls and controls on exchange, waiting lines for basic goods, the army taking over stores, human rights abuses, high levels of inflation…basically an economy that is only surviving because of their unique oil reserves. It's all well and good to try to implement short-term solutions to 'help' the poor, but when it causes you to **** your economy long-term, it doesn't really help anyone, now does it.

Chalk it up as another failure of Socialist nonsense; they'll eventually grow out of it, pass on the authoritarians and realise how a more open market can be so beneficial. Hopefully they realise sooner rather than later.

Better write off all of Northern Europe then.

I remember I once accused you of being an ideologue and you feverishly denied it. Seems I was right.

 

[medusala]

Norway gets away with it due to oil wealth. Denmark has had a horrendous time of late (and has a very flexible labour market) and Sweden backtracked years ago including cutting govt spending by circa 15% of gdp.

Even the French have finally woken up

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...s-cuts-to-taxes-and-public-spending-1.1641582

French president François Hollande has pledged to cut public spending, lower taxes and reduce labour costs for business in a bid to convince a sceptical public that he remains capable of regenerating France’s stuttering economy.

...
There is no free lunch

 

[OldBlueFan]

There is no free lunch

Except for the corporations with their snouts in the government trough.

Not to mention the banks that get bailed out after their rampant greed and then insist that the very governments in debt as a result of the bailouts now cut spending on anything that doesn't line their pockets.

Oh, and those other corporations that can get away with environmental degradation without ever repairing their damage (or paying for the human suffering that results).

Capitalism ... the greatest con ever perpetrated on humanity.

 

[OldBlueFan]

So what is it when the communists use the military to maintain socialism? Because I think you'll find more people died died under their watch than under "the wests".

I think a lot of the trouble lies in that socialism in those examples came about through violent revolution, and the resultant militarist governments are quick to believe that square pegs CAN fit into round holes if bashed hard enough.

Right-wing military governments were no less bloodthirsty - Suharto (Indonesia), Pinochet (Chile), Franco (Spain), Hitler (Germany), Salazar (Portugal), the Somozas (Nicaragua) among others.

Add to that list the US in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Balkans and Iraq, the Brits in Australia, India and various countries in Africa, the French in yet more countries in Africa.

You'll find that "democracies" have been responsible for far more death than even the Communist governments, let alone the socialist ones.

 

[placebo]

Better write off all of Northern Europe then.

I remember I once accused you of being an ideologue and you feverishly denied it. Seems I was right.

There's a difference between realising socialism is a complete failure, and pointing out it's failures, and being an ideologue. What ideology is it that you think I'm apart of? Who is it I support exclusively? I've said it before…the closest label you could really attribute to me is probably a 'moderate libertarian', but that really doesn't encapsulate my broader views, nor sums up my philosophical underpinnings or overall world-view. I support common sense. Socialism, by all manner of common sense, is an outdated silly notion that unfortunately still has a stronghold in places like Venezuela.

Oh and do you really wanna bring up the thread where you accused me of being an ideologue? The one where you made a fool of yourself after I thoroughly made you look silly? That one?