I'm curious, were referring to me as the "young lady"? Well, having just turned 34 that greaf if that's the case, just kidding
You are 100% right about the fact that Chavez said he would reform the Constitution to seek permanent reelection. And his latest move was to ask the Congress -constituted only by members of his political party- to hand him all Congressional powers so he can issue laws, decrees and whatever floats his boat for 18 months. Is really necessary considering he's constantly cheered every time he shows his face in the Congress building? To me this shows nothing but disdain towards democracy. Furthermore he issued a decree to declare Febreruary 4th a National Holiday. In February 4th, 1992 he made his first attempt at a Coup D' Etat. A true democrat!!!!
About the alledged improvement of Venezuelan's living conditions. Yes, there are improvements in child mortality rates and malnourishing rates (however, the only countries with a deficit in these areas are African countries severely affected by AIDS). Poverty has decreased maybe 2 percentile points. On the contrary, extreme poverty, inequality and unemployment have increased. Infrastructure is falling apart all over the country; the amount of corruption is the same -or bigger- just switched sides (before it was in AD and COPEI hands). Human rights record is shameful. But I guess that developing countries can settle for less, at least that's what I get from reading this forum. We have to choose: either a democracy or poverty reduction. Guess what? Chile, has proven both can be achieved. Since the return of democracy reduced its povery rate by more than 20 percentile points, while respecting human rights, personal freedoms and having honest and accountable institutions...data available at: http://www.eclac.org
Venezuela's dependency on oil exports is on the rise; agriculture, small and middle enterprise are disappearing, young professionals are fleeing the country. EU and the US Embassies are being flooded by people who wants to leave; and no, not all of these are "rich getting what they deserve", most of them are hard working people dissenting. I won't bother going into detail about his effect on South America's integration process; one word: disaster
Is Chavez really that independent from USA? How much of Venezuela's revenue from oil stems directly from the US? Such percentage is unavailable (Venezuela's bureau of statistics is a beacon of transparency), but I'll say at least 30%.
Ohh about giving cheap oil to London, I guess it is great for the city. But I'm guessing Venezuelans will be angry once again about the fact that their President keeps giving away their resources instead of solving their problems. Just like he did when he tried to buy himself a chair in the UN's Security Council or when he gave Evo Morales a plane to make a tour through the EU to get his support at MERCOSUR.
Peace to all
Caterina
EDIT: just to improve the redaction. English (obviously) is not my native language
Yes you are correct and 34 is still young....well at least when I turn 34 I still want to be considered young . Thanks again for some more input, I feel that some people here have some very idealized views of Ven. and that someone with first hand knowledge would be able to paint a more accurate picture of the country.
Like farfromglorified suggested, you can play the "yeah, but he was elected!" card all you want ... It doesn't invalidate any of the concerns with Chavez that people brought up in this thread. I find it a bit concerning that you seem to brush off politically-motivated detention and torture as just another problem of the sort that all world leaders promulgate. Socialist dictators always get a free pass on the Train, for some reason. But if the person is more like the former leader in Chile, then bashing him and his U.S. allies is par for the course.
I'm not giving him a pass. I'm just not going to call him a dictator right now. He was elected. For those that didn't vote for him (I used to work with a very anti-Chavez lady from Venezuela) all I can say is "yeah, you got stuck with a president you don't like. That happens in a democracy."
And yes, politically motivated detention is wrong - moreso when a leader does it to members of his own country, as opposed to foriegners who happen to look like someone else, or were on the wrong battlefield at the wrong time. Good thing the U.S. left that practice behind after WWII............
At any rate, Chavez has his problems. All countries do. However, if he weren't so Anti-Bush, we wouldn't even be talking about him right now (and that goes for both the left and the right). He'd just be some world leader who's not as bad as most, yet worse than many. I have faith that the people of Venezuela know what they're doing - and will know what to do in the future.
I mostly came into this thread to read about the London deal. Comparitively, I really don't see anything wrong with it. As I said, there are far worse people they could be (and, like us, are) dealing with.
How does this count as aid? Seems like a straight up trade to me. A discount on some oil in fair exchange for some knowledge regarding transportation.
Yeah, seriously. Were this anyone other than Chavez, would the deal be so "suspect?"
I have strong reservations about this Chavez guy - more disappointing than frightening for me, though. However, I'm not going to criticize either him or London for what looks like an actual attempt to fix parts of his own country.
Yeah, seriously. Were this anyone other than Chavez, would the deal be so "suspect?"
I have strong reservations about this Chavez guy - more disappointing than frightening for me, though. However, I'm not going to criticize either him or London for what looks like an actual attempt to fix parts of his own country.
His country would probably need less fixing if it was better managed as an actual democracy, capable of cultivating relationships with so-called "capitalist devils" like the Americans.
And no, that doesn't mean Bush is a great guy, and it doesn't mean that people need to agree with his policies. Most democracies in fact do not agree with Bush on any major political issues, yet the abuses of Chavez are still avoided in these places.
His country would probably need less fixing if it was better managed as an actual democracy, capable of cultivating relationships with so-called "capitalist devils" like the Americans.
And no, that doesn't mean Bush is a great guy, and it doesn't mean that people need to agree with his policies. Most democracies in fact do not agree with Bush on any major political issues, yet the abuses of Chavez are still avoided in these places.
I've never been to Venezuela, so I can't really comment on the on-the-ground realities. However, I'm not so sure they would need "less fixing." People like Chavez don't get elected if a country only needs some minor tweaking.
As for abuses being avoided in places like the U.S., well, they weren't always. Nations evolve. We were able to work most of that out (not all, mind you), and I have faith that Venezuela will, too. And apparently Chavez isn't above dealing with Capitalist Devils, as the article featured in this thread shows.
Chile's economic turn-around is both a wonderful and strange story. It's sad that their successes were marred by the some very disturbing non-economic actions by Pinochet and others in power. But for those looking for an interesting study in the effects of free market policies, Chile provides a fascinating example.
Hehe...not only is he not "above" it, everything about his ridiculous plan requires it.
I know I shouldn't ask, but what exactly is ridiculous about giving London a discount on deisel for some help on improving general infrastructure? To me, it sounds a lot like one of those standard "labor/value" trades you're always discussing.
I know I shouldn't ask, but what exactly is ridiculous about giving London a discount on deisel for some help on improving general infrastructure? To me, it sounds a lot like one of those standard "labor/value" trades you're always discussing.
There's absolutely nothing ridiculous about this trade, except for the fact that Chavez is simply trading something that he stole from someone else. Aside from that, however, it's perfectly fine.
The "plan" I spoke of in my previous post wasn't in reference to this trade. It was in reference to his complete "socialistic revolution" that is only made possible by the capitalistic enterprise of selling oil at market prices to us "devils".
There's absolutely nothing ridiculous about this trade, except for the fact that Chavez is simply trading something that he stole from someone else. Aside from that, however, it's perfectly fine.
So he's using what he stole to make a deal for something someone else stole. Personally, I think your whole "stole" definition to be a little broad.
The "plan" I spoke of in my previous post wasn't in reference to this trade. It was in reference to his complete "socialistic revolution" that is only made possible by the capitalistic enterprise of selling oil at market prices to us "devils".
Perhaps he's only socialistic in regards to his own country; like setting up Venezuela as one huge company with himself as the CEO. Perhaps he's not really a socialist at all, but is instead using a term that's popular in his country right now in order to keep the necessary support to remain in office (sort of like Bush and the word "conservative"). That way he could "save" his country from socialism by using it in doses (like I hoped he would do when I thought he could be a Latin FDR). Perhaps he's just some lucky yet sly dumbass (again, not unlike Bush).
Perhaps he's only socialistic in regards to his own country; like setting up Venezuela as one huge company with himself as the CEO. Perhaps he's not really a socialist at all, but is instead using a term that's popular in his country right now in order to keep the necessary support to remain in office (sort of like Bush and the word "conservative"). That way he could "save" his country from socialism by using it in doses (like I hoped he would do when I thought he could be a Latin FDR). Perhaps he's just some lucky yet sly dumbass (again, not unlike Bush).
All good possibilities. I lean towards believing the second one, personally. So much of what seems to go on behind the scenes in that country suggests that Chavez doesn't really believe in the ideology that everyone has intrinisic worth, which I think is core in real socialism.
So he's using what he stole to make a deal for something someone else stole. Personally, I think your whole "stole" definition to be a little broad.
Actually, no. Britain, in this instance, isn't stealing anything involved in this trade.
Perhaps he's only socialistic in regards to his own country; like setting up Venezuela as one huge company with himself as the CEO. Perhaps he's not really a socialist at all, but is instead using a term that's popular in his country right now in order to keep the necessary support to remain in office (sort of like Bush and the word "conservative"). That way he could "save" his country from socialism by using it in doses (like I hoped he would do when I thought he could be a Latin FDR). Perhaps he's just some lucky yet sly dumbass (again, not unlike Bush).
Chavez is a dumbass, yes. And he's also a socialistic one, both self-proclaimed and proven by the increasing trend of nationalizations under his rule. Chavez hasn't saved his country from anything. He's handed it over to the looters who elected him. He has given them exactly what they asked for, and the reprecussions of these actions are already showing.
Hmmm....I'd argue that ignoring the intrinsic worth of people is the core of socialism.
If one takes the reality of how non-democratic socialism is practiced here on the planet? Then yes, absolutely.
If one is using "democratic socialism" as a model (by that, I mean socialist touches in an otherwise basically capitalist system), then I must disagree.
If one takes the reality of how non-democratic socialism is practiced here on the planet? Then yes, absolutely.
If one is using "democratic socialism" as a model (by that, I mean socialist touches in an otherwise basically capitalist system), then I must disagree.
Still doesn't work for me. Any system wherein the worth of a person is defined by the state as opposed to the market can hold no title to recognizing the intrinsic value of a person. Thankfully, even your "democratic socialists" don't do completely this, since they know whom to loot, just like the undemocratic ones do.
I never said you stole it, I said it was stolen. Is there a statute of limitations included in your definition, or is it that once an object changes hands so many times it ceases to be stolen?
No, I'd say I'm doing a pretty good job. Likely no one would agree with giving this advice for free, so theft had to occur at some point.
Assuming the government is paying for it, which it probably is, then yes. Theft did have to occur at some point. But you're comparing two thefts that are not equal. In other words, you've taken one core argument of mine and ignored the rest. It's a caricature. If Britain's actions were comparable, the British government would be walking into the advice-givers' offices here, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to participate. That's not the case. Yet in Venezuela, that's exactly what happened in the offices of those who produce the oil that Hugo Chavez is so graciously offering.
I never said you stole it, I said it was stolen.
Ok. Who was it stolen from?
Is there a statute of limitations included in your definition, or is it that once an object changes hands so many times it ceases to be stolen?
Really? Damn, sorry about that. I guess seeing as how that's never happened to me, I just don't know how to relate.
No need to apologize.
Natives, likely.
Not at all. The only native tribe to have arguably ever occupied my land was the Occaneechi. That tribe was a common trading partner with the British, and their land wasn't stolen. Much of it, as a matter of fact, was abandoned by the Occaneechi as they settled within British forts and towns.
Freedom from a class-based society where we are separated by how much money we have in the bank??? Let me ask you a question:
How do you achieve that without separating people based on how much money they have in the bank?
raising minimum wage, tax the rich, socialized health care....cheap, quality housing, change from a military based economy to one based on social oriented policies...less gov't, more individual freedom...
when one makes 20 million, ten thousand people lose.
raising minimum wage, tax the rich, socialized health care....cheap, quality housing, change from a military based economy to one based on social oriented policies...less gov't, more individual freedom...
when one makes 20 million, ten thousand people lose.
Wow...you fell into the slogans and scripts pretty quick there.
So when you "raise the minimum wage", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay those without?
So when you "tax the rich", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay your tax and those without to collect?
So when you "socialize health care", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to buy health care for those without?
Everything you propose here requires more government, not less. And each one requires the threat of violence to keep those you've separated as rich to continue supporting your scheme, which really makes me doubt your committment to a "change from a military based economy".
Wow...you fell into the slogans and scripts pretty quick there.
sorry its been a while...
So when you "raise the minimum wage", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay those without?
We are already separted by income. We need to take steps to level the playing field. In order to do that certain sacrifices will need to be made by those who have more...
So when you "tax the rich", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay your tax and those without to collect?
just enough to level the playing field, ideally we end up with a flat tax and everyone is doing well...the United States certainly has enough money as it is, accounting for almost half the world's speindng on means of violence.
So when you "socialize health care", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to buy health care for those without?
again, when the field is leveled, ie we have equal income, the rich won't be supporting the poor. as it stands some 40 million american are without health care, this is while we are killing hundreds of thousands of people in country that didn't do a thing to any of us, and had no intention of doing so. our priorites are pretty fucked up. and the rich don't have to pay for it. Again, the US spends more on violence then the next 27 countries combined...there's room for some spending on health care I'm sure.
Everything you propose here requires more government, not less. And each one requires the threat of violence to keep those you've separated as rich to continue supporting your scheme, which really makes me doubt your committment to a "change from a military based economy".
At first the system requires sacrifice, but the people will ultimately rule, democratic down to the workplace....
We are already separted by income. We need to take steps to level the playing field. In order to do that certain sacrifices will need to be made by those who have more...
Yikes. I understand. But do you not see that people will still be separated by income in your plan???
just enough to level the playing field, ideally we end up with a flat tax and everyone is doing well...the United States certainly has enough money as it is, accounting for almost half the world's speindng on means of violence.
And I find it odd that you don't support that spending. Just like we make "war for peace", you've adopted that logic in your "separate people by money in order to ensure no one is separated by money" plan.
again, when the field is leveled, ie we have equal income, the rich won't be supporting the poor. as it stands some 40 million american are without health care, this is while we are killing hundreds of thousands of people in country that didn't do a thing to any of us, and had no intention of doing so. our priorites are pretty fucked up. and the rich don't have to pay for it. Again, the US spends more on violence then the next 27 countries combined...there's room for some spending on health care I'm sure.
At first the system requires sacrifice, but the people will ultimately rule, democratic down to the workplace....
Good lord.
When your "field is levelled", you're going to discover something very important: food cannot grow itself. Medicine cannot invent itself. Money cannot give itself value. The key to each is labor. And when you've equally distributed all the resources of this country equally, you'll see for yourself what happens to people who don't understand where those resources came from in the first place: the unequal labor of those very same people.
Comments
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yes you are correct and 34 is still young....well at least when I turn 34 I still want to be considered young
Thanks.
And yes, politically motivated detention is wrong - moreso when a leader does it to members of his own country, as opposed to foriegners who happen to look like someone else, or were on the wrong battlefield at the wrong time. Good thing the U.S. left that practice behind after WWII............
At any rate, Chavez has his problems. All countries do. However, if he weren't so Anti-Bush, we wouldn't even be talking about him right now (and that goes for both the left and the right). He'd just be some world leader who's not as bad as most, yet worse than many. I have faith that the people of Venezuela know what they're doing - and will know what to do in the future.
I mostly came into this thread to read about the London deal. Comparitively, I really don't see anything wrong with it. As I said, there are far worse people they could be (and, like us, are) dealing with.
I have strong reservations about this Chavez guy - more disappointing than frightening for me, though. However, I'm not going to criticize either him or London for what looks like an actual attempt to fix parts of his own country.
His country would probably need less fixing if it was better managed as an actual democracy, capable of cultivating relationships with so-called "capitalist devils" like the Americans.
And no, that doesn't mean Bush is a great guy, and it doesn't mean that people need to agree with his policies. Most democracies in fact do not agree with Bush on any major political issues, yet the abuses of Chavez are still avoided in these places.
As for abuses being avoided in places like the U.S., well, they weren't always. Nations evolve. We were able to work most of that out (not all, mind you), and I have faith that Venezuela will, too. And apparently Chavez isn't above dealing with Capitalist Devils, as the article featured in this thread shows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile#Economy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
Chile's economic turn-around is both a wonderful and strange story. It's sad that their successes were marred by the some very disturbing non-economic actions by Pinochet and others in power. But for those looking for an interesting study in the effects of free market policies, Chile provides a fascinating example.
Hehe...not only is he not "above" it, everything about his ridiculous plan requires it.
There's absolutely nothing ridiculous about this trade, except for the fact that Chavez is simply trading something that he stole from someone else. Aside from that, however, it's perfectly fine.
The "plan" I spoke of in my previous post wasn't in reference to this trade. It was in reference to his complete "socialistic revolution" that is only made possible by the capitalistic enterprise of selling oil at market prices to us "devils".
Perhaps he's only socialistic in regards to his own country; like setting up Venezuela as one huge company with himself as the CEO. Perhaps he's not really a socialist at all, but is instead using a term that's popular in his country right now in order to keep the necessary support to remain in office (sort of like Bush and the word "conservative"). That way he could "save" his country from socialism by using it in doses (like I hoped he would do when I thought he could be a Latin FDR). Perhaps he's just some lucky yet sly dumbass (again, not unlike Bush).
All good possibilities. I lean towards believing the second one, personally. So much of what seems to go on behind the scenes in that country suggests that Chavez doesn't really believe in the ideology that everyone has intrinisic worth, which I think is core in real socialism.
Actually, no. Britain, in this instance, isn't stealing anything involved in this trade.
Chavez is a dumbass, yes. And he's also a socialistic one, both self-proclaimed and proven by the increasing trend of nationalizations under his rule. Chavez hasn't saved his country from anything. He's handed it over to the looters who elected him. He has given them exactly what they asked for, and the reprecussions of these actions are already showing.
Hmmm....I'd argue that ignoring the intrinsic worth of people is the core of socialism.
If one takes the reality of how non-democratic socialism is practiced here on the planet? Then yes, absolutely.
If one is using "democratic socialism" as a model (by that, I mean socialist touches in an otherwise basically capitalist system), then I must disagree.
Still doesn't work for me. Any system wherein the worth of a person is defined by the state as opposed to the market can hold no title to recognizing the intrinsic value of a person. Thankfully, even your "democratic socialists" don't do completely this, since they know whom to loot, just like the undemocratic ones do.
So, make any plans to give back that stolen land your living on yet?
Meh...you're doing a poor job of aping my arguments here.
If the advice were itself being stolen, as was the oil, then yes I'd agree with you.
Who did I steal it from?
I never said you stole it, I said it was stolen. Is there a statute of limitations included in your definition, or is it that once an object changes hands so many times it ceases to be stolen?
Assuming the government is paying for it, which it probably is, then yes. Theft did have to occur at some point. But you're comparing two thefts that are not equal. In other words, you've taken one core argument of mine and ignored the rest. It's a caricature. If Britain's actions were comparable, the British government would be walking into the advice-givers' offices here, pointing guns at them, and forcing them to participate. That's not the case. Yet in Venezuela, that's exactly what happened in the offices of those who produce the oil that Hugo Chavez is so graciously offering.
Ok. Who was it stolen from?
Not at all.
Natives, likely.
No need to apologize.
Not at all. The only native tribe to have arguably ever occupied my land was the Occaneechi. That tribe was a common trading partner with the British, and their land wasn't stolen. Much of it, as a matter of fact, was abandoned by the Occaneechi as they settled within British forts and towns.
Hehe....freedom from what?
haha. good point.
freedom from a class based society, where we are separated by how much money we have in the bank....among other things.
Freedom from a class-based society where we are separated by how much money we have in the bank??? Let me ask you a question:
How do you achieve that without separating people based on how much money they have in the bank?
raising minimum wage, tax the rich, socialized health care....cheap, quality housing, change from a military based economy to one based on social oriented policies...less gov't, more individual freedom...
when one makes 20 million, ten thousand people lose.
Wow...you fell into the slogans and scripts pretty quick there.
So when you "raise the minimum wage", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay those without?
So when you "tax the rich", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to pay your tax and those without to collect?
So when you "socialize health care", how are you not separating people by how much money they have in the bank? Aren't you telling those with lots of money to buy health care for those without?
Everything you propose here requires more government, not less. And each one requires the threat of violence to keep those you've separated as rich to continue supporting your scheme, which really makes me doubt your committment to a "change from a military based economy".
Yikes. I understand. But do you not see that people will still be separated by income in your plan???
And I find it odd that you don't support that spending. Just like we make "war for peace", you've adopted that logic in your "separate people by money in order to ensure no one is separated by money" plan.
Good lord.
When your "field is levelled", you're going to discover something very important: food cannot grow itself. Medicine cannot invent itself. Money cannot give itself value. The key to each is labor. And when you've equally distributed all the resources of this country equally, you'll see for yourself what happens to people who don't understand where those resources came from in the first place: the unequal labor of those very same people.