Chavez devaluates Venezuela currency

[Shady]

Let's hear it for Hugo Chavez! If only we could be more like him and them!

Venezuela plans blackouts in Caracas

Officials announced the nationwide electricity rationing lasting at least until May on Tuesday and said even schools and small health clinics would be hit in South America's top oil exporter.

Link

Just when you think he can't possibly continue to help the poor and disadvantaged, he goes and does something like this, and totally redeems himself.

[KeyStone]

"Venezuela discovered oil in 1922, Kuwait in 1931, both countries were in the same boat at that era, that's their own fault socialists don't know how to run an economy."

Again, as I have already pointed out to you, Kuwait produces ten times the oil that Venezuela does per capita. Countries are not grouped into two categories (has oil, doesn't have oil), the amount of the oil is also a factor, as well as how easy it is to extract. Kuwait is a rare exception - as it has a massive surplus of oil for a tiny population.

"The numbers don't lie. Hell in 1969 is when they found oil in Norway.

There is no excuse for the lack of Venezuelan prosperity."

As should be blitheringly obvious, oil is not the only factor in a nation's success.

"Alberta, Kuwait, and Norway have a much higher standard of living and much higher incomes than venezuela. Numbers don't lie. Chavez is a failure. His people are broke, yet they float on oil. The countries in my example allow foreign investment, and are richer for it."

Yes, the cherrypicked countries in your example. Last I checked Iraq allows foreign investment and has oil. In fact, I think the US has been in there fixing it for 7 years now.

You have made the following assertions:

1 - 10 Years is long enough to fix a country.

2 - A country that has a decent amount of oil should be very wealthy.

So, based on that, if Iraq is not swimming in money with all its problems fixed three years from now, are you willing to admit that the US rule has been a complete and utter failure?

"Why after oil hit 147 dollars is his country a toilet? Why after 10 year in power are his people still poor? Any CEO with that poor of performance would be fired."

First off, Venezuela is not a toilet. It is reasonable although crime is a major problem, and some poverty still exists.

Secondly, oil did not stay at 147 dollars a barrel for very long.

Thirdly, while conditions are improving, he has not solved every problem in the country in ten years. He has had some successes (literacy) and some failures (crime).

Any leader that could take a country like Venezuela and magically transform it in ten years, thanks to some oil money to fix every problem it ever had, would be unanimously voted Secretary General for Life.

"Just like Mugabe did with his printing press. Brilliant economics, devalue the currency and screw over your populations purchasing power! And leftists wonder why Venezuela that floats on oil is as broke and pathetic as it is."

It's obvious you don't understand. The bolivar is already devalued. It has been artificially pegged at an exchange rate much higher than it's actual value. Now, he is bringing it more in line with the parallel price. Even economist agree that this is a good thing. He could have made it a little more gradual, in my opinion but perhaps he has his reaons. He isn't printing money and handing it out to the wovits, though.

"The venezuelans went from throwing crap at each other to throwing crap at each other with socks on, wow what an improvement."

I don't know why I bother posting to you, given that you have a tendency to ignore everything that doesn't fit your belief that Chavez is evil and incompetent. I've already pointed out the many improvements he has made to the country - improvements which the people obviously see, since they keep voting him in.

"The state of venezuela does not have enough dollars to develop its oil reserves, that's why they are poor broke trash. They need foreign money, but don't want it."

Ireland always had a solid base of educated people, thanks to their socialist education system that provides free education, a system that Chavez has put into place in Venezuela for the first time.

"Ireland turned its economy around in 10 years without oil, why can't Chavez? Oh that's right he's a tin pot insane dictator. It is that simplistic, Chavez is a failure."

Again, you have taken the most succesful turnaround in recent memory and made it the standard for mediocrity.

"Kuwait was a pile of sand before oil, Venezuela had more going for it before oil. Yet Kuwait knows how to manage itself. I leave out Iraq plus Nigeria and Iran because they are poor and also have tin pot dictators such as Chavez"

Umm, Iraq has a tin pot dictator? Really, what did the US give up all those lives for? Do you mean the media is just lying to us, about this whole democracy stuff?

"notice a trend anywhere?"

Uhh, yeah - you're consistently trying to oversimplify things into binary categorizations, when even a small child suffering from light retardation could see that it's more complex than that.

"Wrong, the cato institute called the cash injection a hindrance. Ireland got to where it was by slashing taxes, there was no meticulous socialist central planning. It was slash taxes and watch the sharks feast. Ireland made a killing, and with zero oil exports on top of it."

Well gosh, if the Cato institute said so, then they must be right. Cash injections must be a bad thing. How could a right wing think tank be wrong?"

"My examples are successes and have the numbers to back it up, where are the numbers on venezuela's success? Socialism is a failure, ask the Soviets."

It depends how you define socialism. Given that the Soviets were communists, it's not a great case study for the failure of socialism. Generally, whenever a social democracy has existed, it has been undermined by the West - ie Chile, Iran, Guatemala, etc.

Here are some numbers:

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/press-releases/press-releases/cepr-paper-responds-to-foreign-affairs-on-venezuela/

Of course, this information is easily available using Google, if you actually wanted to know.

And, as you know, there are many other articles from Western media showing that Venezuela is turning into Zimbabwe.

So, someone is obviously biased.

I would think that the best way to know if conditions are improving in Venezuela or not, would be to see what the people think. And since they keep voting him in, they must think that he is doing a pretty good job.

[KeyStone]

"Exactly, and it's not just the oil indusrty he's doing that with. He pretends to want foreign investment, and then after they spend millions of their own dollars building facilities and infastructure related to their particular business, he then screams HA HA, MINE NOW! And takes it from them. You can only pull that shit off once, and the end result means that he costs his country billions and billions of dollars per year in foreign investment, and business, and jobs for Venezuelan citizens."

The change to the oil industry needed to be done. Those foreign companies were taking all the oil, and giving the people of Venezuela next to nothing. In fact, for the heavy oil, out of the Orinoco, they were only paying a 1% royalty. These companies had all made back 10 times their initial investment. Furthermore, of the companies that were offered the new terms, only two of them pulled out - the rest realized it was still very profitable and chose to stay.

Let's say that Mulroney had signed a deal with the US, for us to give them all of our oil at $5/barrel for the next 1000 years. Would we be 'stealing from the US', if we broke that deal? My point is that if a previous leader makes a foolish deal, it is within reason for a future leader to break that deal, if it is too one sided. Give a bribe of ten million, and get five billion back in value, as the leader signs away the future of a country.

But Chavez should have stopped there, instead of privatizing every business that is making money. As a result, the investment climate is completely unstable and businesses are fearful that they will be taken over. We will see if Chavez can inject enough oil money into the economy to offset the loss of revenues from private enterprise.

"If Chavez would operate on good faith, he could attract large numbers of foreign investors, the way top economic country's do. If he would allow Venezuela to develop its own free-market capitalist economy, and with the natural resources they already have, Venezuela could quickly become a vibrant economy, with a much higher standard of living. Heck, they could be the South American version of Alberta, but on a much greater scale."

Perhaps, but he is more interested in lifting all of the Latin American people out of the enslavement to the West.

[blueblood]

Again, as I have already pointed out to you, Kuwait produces ten times the oil that Venezuela does per capita. Countries are not grouped into two categories (has oil, doesn't have oil), the amount of the oil is also a factor, as well as how easy it is to extract. Kuwait is a rare exception - as it has a massive surplus of oil for a tiny population.

When you let foreign companies invest in your country more oil can be taken out. Chavez could produce lots of oil, but he chooses to screw over investors and look at the mess his country is. Oil industry in Venezula since 1922, their fault.

As should be blitheringly obvious, oil is not the only factor in a nation's success.

No shit sherlock, ask the Irish.

Yes, the cherrypicked countries in your example. Last I checked Iraq allows foreign investment and has oil. In fact, I think the US has been in there fixing it for 7 years now.

You have made the following assertions:

1 - 10 Years is long enough to fix a country.

2 - A country that has a decent amount of oil should be very wealthy.

So, based on that, if Iraq is not swimming in money with all its problems fixed three years from now, are you willing to admit that the US rule has been a complete and utter failure?

There is no US rule, if you believe that you wear a tinfoil hat. Iraq has its own parliamentary system and has the US troops there for security, don't worry the 'merkins will be gone soon enough. However the Iraq gov't is incompetant and Iraq just got out of a revolutionary war, its as big a gong show as Venezuela.

However, Venezuela has had peaceful transitions of gov't for some time, yet they can't manage to run an economy, even the great Chavez can't pull it off. Hell the Irish didn't even have that advantage.

First off, Venezuela is not a toilet. It is reasonable although crime is a major problem, and some poverty still exists.

Secondly, oil did not stay at 147 dollars a barrel for very long.

Thirdly, while conditions are improving, he has not solved every problem in the country in ten years. He has had some successes (literacy) and some failures (crime).

Any leader that could take a country like Venezuela and magically transform it in ten years, thanks to some oil money to fix every problem it ever had, would be unanimously voted Secretary General for Life.

Chavez brags about socialism being the greatest thing since sliced bread, a system that is perfect, yet his people live in squalor. He is the definition of a failure. Everybody else cashed in on 147 dollar oil, why can't he? How could conditions not improve, Paris Hilton could make conditions improve there. The Irish didn't even have oil money, and in 10 years they magically transformed their country, why can't Chavez and his perfect system do so?

It's obvious you don't understand. The bolivar is already devalued. It has been artificially pegged at an exchange rate much higher than it's actual value. Now, he is bringing it more in line with the parallel price. Even economist agree that this is a good thing. He could have made it a little more gradual, in my opinion but perhaps he has his reaons. He isn't printing money and handing it out to the wovits, though.

And you don't understand hyperinflation. With the wave of his hand, the people of Venezuela's purchasing power has been cut in half.

Ireland always had a solid base of educated people, thanks to their socialist education system that provides free education, a system that Chavez has put into place in Venezuela for the first time.

A fat lot of good that education did the Irish most of the 20th century. And I suppose you haven't heard of education inflation either. Ask a person with a philosophy degree what kind of a job they can get and for what salary.

Again, you have taken the most succesful turnaround in recent memory and made it the standard for mediocrity.

Well if Socialism is the be all and end all and capitalism is an evil failure according to Chavez, if Ireland can achieve prosperity in 10 yrs. without oil and using the capitalist system, why can't venezuela using the socialist system have a similar standard of living? maybe because socialism sucks.

Umm, Iraq has a tin pot dictator? Really, what did the US give up all those lives for? Do you mean the media is just lying to us, about this whole democracy stuff?

No, just a gong show just like Venezuela, however a free gong show.

Uhh, yeah - you're consistently trying to oversimplify things into binary categorizations, when even a small child suffering from light retardation could see that it's more complex than that.

And that same small child can see that your grasping at straws to justify a tin pot dictator for impoverishing his own people.

Well gosh, if the Cato institute said so, then they must be right. Cash injections must be a bad thing. How could a right wing think tank be wrong?"

Just like you and your leftist think tanks think that chavez is the second coming of jesus that will save the venezuelans and that socialism is the only way for a society to become prosperous. Given the results of the USSR and the fact that leftist countries are broke losers, I'll side with the cato institute over your tin foil hatists.

It depends how you define socialism. Given that the Soviets were communists, it's not a great case study for the failure of socialism. Generally, whenever a social democracy has existed, it has been undermined by the West - ie Chile, Iran, Guatemala, etc.

USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. They were socialists whether you believe it or not, and they went down in history as epic failures. The EU are all social democracies, how come they aren't undermined by the west? oh wait, maybe because they have accountable gov't that doesn't screw its people over. Those countries screwed themselves and use the west as a scapegoat, which puts you on par with the losers of their country for believing that nonsense.

I would think that the best way to know if conditions are improving in Venezuela or not, would be to see what the people think. And since they keep voting him in, they must think that he is doing a pretty good job.

Of course when your a tin pot dictator who has the unwavering support of the armed forces, who bullies and silences dissenters, of course people are going to vote him in, they're scared otherwise.

The change to the oil industry needed to be done. Those foreign companies were taking all the oil, and giving the people of Venezuela next to nothing. In fact, for the heavy oil, out of the Orinoco, they were only paying a 1% royalty. These companies had all made back 10 times their initial investment. Furthermore, of the companies that were offered the new terms, only two of them pulled out - the rest realized it was still very profitable and chose to stay

What the hell are you talking about. Oil costs money to extract, money the Venezuelans don't have. Yet in 1943 standard oil agreed to a 50-50 deal to the country. Alberta doesn't even get a royalty agreement like that, yet they are far richer than Venezuela. those foreign oil companies were paying royalties of 17% and Chavez comes along and robs them of another 13%. The Venezuelans had a far "favorable" royalty structure than Alberta, yet they're still broke, how come?

Let's say that Mulroney had signed a deal with the US, for us to give them all of our oil at $5/barrel for the next 1000 years. Would we be 'stealing from the US', if we broke that deal? My point is that if a previous leader makes a foolish deal, it is within reason for a future leader to break that deal, if it is too one sided. Give a bribe of ten million, and get five billion back in value, as the leader signs away the future of a country.

Yes we would be stealing if we broke that deal. Apparently you need to work on your contract law skills. There was no one sided deal with Venezuela, to suggest otherwise is tin foil hattetness. Alberta has lower royalty rates and greater prosperity. Then there is the rock bottom corporate taxes in Ireland for the use of its land and people. If you think jacking up royalty rates and taxes are how you get an economy going it's time for an economics class for you.

But Chavez should have stopped there, instead of privatizing every business that is making money. As a result, the investment climate is completely unstable and businesses are fearful that they will be taken over. We will see if Chavez can inject enough oil money into the economy to offset the loss of revenues from private enterprise.

Chavez should have stopped the moment he thought about being a foreign leader. Chavez made the investment climate unstable and his people are paying the price. Chavez is a tin pot dictator, that money is being spent on armed forces and a life of luxury for Chavez and his loyalists.

Perhaps, but he is more interested in lifting all of the Latin American people out of the enslavement to the West

No, he's interested in enslaving the Latin American people to him, keeping them poor, and robbing oil companies to fill his bank account. GWB is minor leagues compared to this clown.

[August1991]

An important detail in the OP entirely missed in the ensuing discussion:

It devalues the currency to 4.3 and 2.6 against the dollar, from a rate of 2.15 per dollar in place since 2005, giving the better rate for basic goods in an attempt to limit the impact of the measure on consumer prices.

IOW, Venezuela will have two exchange rates.

This is an invitation to corruption. It is a policy typical of second and third world governments.

[bloodyminded]

They were poor then and are poor now. So much for socialism being the gift from heaven to save the venezuelans. 10 years and nothing but failure.

But--as is implied (though conveniently ignored)by your own posts on this subject--Venezuela has historically usually been run by right-wing governments with close ties to Western private Business interests.

Clearly, that was a catastrophic economic failure.

You seem to think "ten years" is a long time, while several decades are not..well, not too important. And not too telling.

Plus, you're holding Chavez to a MUCH higher standard than the right-wing dictatoships, allied to the West and friendly to foreign business.

Under whose rule life was WORSE.

Odd.

Edited January 16, 2010 by bloodyminded

[blueblood]

But--as is implied (though conveniently ignored)by your own posts on this subject--Venezuela has historically usually been run by right-wing governments with close ties to Western private Business interests.

Clearly, that was a catastrophic economic failure.

You seem to think "ten years" is a long time, while several decades are not..well, not too important. And not too telling.

Plus, you're holding Chavez to a MUCH higher standard than the right-wing dictatoships, allied to the West and friendly to foreign business.

Under whose rule life was WORSE.

Odd.

Odd, there is no mention of centre right gov'ts in Venezuela in the Wiki article.

To imply that a military gov't is right wing is flat out ignorant.

I'm holding Chavez to the same standard that successful countries are right wing or not. He claims that socialism is the key to prosperity, its not my fault he can't back that up.

Ireland has had right wing gov'ts for years, slashed taxes, and cozied up to business in spite of being a wreck. Worked out pretty good for them I'd say.

A country floating on oil, that close to the US, with someone claiming that his system will bring his people to prosperity is the catastrophic economic failure here.

[Shady]

UPDATE: Venezuela Nationalizes French-Colombian Retailer Exito

CARACAS (Dow Jones)--President Hugo Chavez ordered Sunday the seizure of a French-owned retail chain on accusations that it raised prices after Venezuela devalued the currency by half.

Link

Chavez continues his destruction of the Venezuelan economy.

[August1991]

But--as is implied (though conveniently ignored)by your own posts on this subject--Venezuela has historically usually been run by right-wing governments with close ties to Western private Business interests.

Clearly, that was a catastrophic economic failure.

....

Plus, you're holding Chavez to a MUCH higher standard than the right-wing dictatoships, allied to the West and friendly to foreign business.

Under whose rule life was WORSE.

I won't argue with you here about Venezuela before Chavez but I think you make a fundamental error of correlation and causation.

By all appearances, life under Chavez is a catastrophic economic failure and according to you, it was previously a catastrophic economic failure. How is that possible? Well, maybe Venezuela's economic situation does not depend on whether it has a left or right wing government, assuming these terms mean anything in Venezuela.

[ToadBrother]

I won't argue with you here about Venezuela before Chavez but I think you make a fundamental error of correlation and causation.

By all appearances, life under Chavez is a catastrophic economic failure and according to you, it was previously a catastrophic economic failure. How is that possible? Well, maybe Venezuela's economic situation does not depend on whether it has a left or right wing government, assuming these terms mean anything in Venezuela.

Maybe if Chavez wasn't trying to buy himself into Simon Bolivar's shoes it might be a little different. Between throwing money around other Latin America countries to buy himself and like-minded politicians in the area influence and trying as best he can to start a war with Colombia, it's a wonder there's enough money left to spend on shutting down evil capitalist supermarkets.

But the tide does seem to be turning. His good buddy Zelaya was given the boot in Honduras before he could violate that country's constitution and try to con himself unlimited terms like Chavez has done. Chile has turned to the right. It suggests the great leap leftward that Chavez has been trying to engineer in Central and South America is failing.

[bloodyminded]

Odd, there is no mention of centre right gov'ts in Venezuela in the Wiki article.

Well, then, case closed?

Are you saying Venezuela has always been "socialist"?

It hasn't. It has usually been capitalist. And note: i am not excoriating capitalism and defending socialism. I have no ideological horse in that particular ideological race...because I am not a socialist. I'm only pointing out what I assumed (mistakenly) was obvious: that socialism is not the root cause of Venezuela's poverty.

If you wish to say it hasn't helped, fine; I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were correct.

But IF one of these economic systems is responsible (your argument, not mine, remember)--then it is capitalism that is responsible, simply because Venezuela has been capitalist the entire pre-Chavez century.

To imply that a military gov't is right wing is flat out ignorant.

I agree. And since I didn't imply it, we'll take your remark here as the non sequiter that it is.

I'm holding Chavez to the same standard that successful countries are right wing or not. He claims that socialism is the key to prosperity, its not my fault he can't back that up.

No, it's not your fault. What is your fault is that you believe Chavez responsible for Venezuela's economic failures way back in 1921.

Ireland has had right wing gov'ts for years, slashed taxes, and cozied up to business in spite of being a wreck. Worked out pretty good for them I'd say.

Sure. But in the case of Venezuela, cozying up to business has not worked as of yet. That was my main point..utterly uncontroversial, a mere trusim based on objective history.

And to reiterate again, I am NOT claiming that Chavez, or socialism, is the answer. The only ones making grandiose claims rooted in ahistorical, ideological religious belief are those who think socialism is the CAUSE of the poverty in the first place; an idea rooted in magic and time travel.

A country floating on oil, that close to the US, with someone claiming that his system will bring his people to prosperity is the catastrophic economic failure here.

Yes...a continuation of the failures evident to their decades-long business-friendly policy.

[bloodyminded]

I won't argue with you here about Venezuela before Chavez but I think you make a fundamental error of correlation and causation.

By all appearances, life under Chavez is a catastrophic economic failure and according to you, it was previously a catastrophic economic failure. How is that possible? Well, maybe Venezuela's economic situation does not depend on whether it has a left or right wing government, assuming these terms mean anything in Venezuela.

I'm inclined to agree with you here. The "fundamental error of correlation and causation" is not mine: it was the error to which I was responding. Because I wasn't claiming that capitalist, pre-Chavez Venezuela's terrible poverty was the direct fault of capitalist ideology; I was expressing that, by Blueblood's standards (ie that oil-rich Venezuela's decades of poverty could be blamed on the past ten years, thanks to...some magical force of physics unknown to us) this would be the case.

[blueblood]

Well, then, case closed?

Are you saying Venezuela has always been "socialist"?

In comparison to Ireland and Alberta, yes.

It hasn't. It has usually been capitalist. And note: i am not excoriating capitalism and defending socialism. I have no ideological horse in that particular ideological race...because I am not a socialist. I'm only pointing out what I assumed (mistakenly) was obvious: that socialism is not the root cause of Venezuela's poverty.

I didn't say it was the cause, that was due to inept management. Socialism just made it a hell of a lot worse. Why can't socialism work?

If you wish to say it hasn't helped, fine; I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were correct.

But IF one of these economic systems is responsible (your argument, not mine, remember)--then it is capitalism that is responsible, simply because Venezuela has been capitalist the entire pre-Chavez century.

Has it been capitalist on the scale as other western democracies? As capitalist as Ireland. Sorry, fail. What's funny is that the oil companies gave venezuela a better deal than Alberta.

I agree. And since I didn't imply it, we'll take your remark here as the non sequiter that it is.

No, it's not your fault. What is your fault is that you believe Chavez responsible for Venezuela's economic failures way back in 1921.

Chavez is responsible for Venezuela's economic failures right now. If Ireland can fix their mess without oil, surely to God Venezuela can fix theirs. But we have a socialist nutbar for a leader, hows that working out?

And to reiterate again, I am NOT claiming that Chavez, or socialism, is the answer. The only ones making grandiose claims rooted in ahistorical, ideological religious belief are those who think socialism is the CAUSE of the poverty in the first place; an idea rooted in magic and time travel.

Look at countries with hardline socialism, and those without, tell me which country is better to live in.

Yes...a continuation of the failures evident to their decades-long business-friendly policy.

Ireland has a decade long business friendly policy, the US has one a century old. Seems like a pretty successful policy to me. How's that anti-business policy going in all the gong show countries out there?

[bloodyminded]

In comparison to Ireland and Alberta, yes.

Are these the objective and scientific comparisons to which all regions must be held?

There are countries more socialist than Ireland with superior economies.

I didn't say it was the cause, that was due to inept management. Socialism just made it a hell of a lot worse. Why can't socialism work?

but Venezuela is not worse off than it was before. The criticisms have been that it remains AS bad.

Chavez is responsible for Venezuela's economic failures right now. If Ireland can fix their mess without oil, surely to God Venezuela can fix theirs. But we have a socialist nutbar for a leader, hows that working out?

but I've pointed out (repeatedly) that I"m not defending Chavez. It appears that if someone says to you "capitalists aren't the perfection of God" you think the person is a commie or something.

Look at countries with hardline socialism, and those without, tell me which country is better to live in.

Again, this isn't our argument.

Edited January 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[blueblood]

Are these the objective and scientific comparisons to which all regions must be held?

There are countries more socialist than Ireland with superior economies.

I use Ireland and venezuela because recently they both were basket cases, now only one of them is.

A capitalist country is the biggest economy of them all...

but Venezuela is not worse off than it was before. The criticisms have been that it remains AS bad.

It doesn't take much to improve. Haiti will be "better off" when the clean up is done. Yet Venezuela is still a basket case.

Chavez is spouting that socialism is the be all and end all, and that capitalism is an evil failure. If he's going to make ridiculous claims like that, he has to back them up. Unfortunately his country is still a poor gong show that floats on oil, yet a country that was a basket case that embraced capitalism is extremely wealthy and one of the freest countries in the world.

but I've pointed out (repeatedly) that I"m not defending Chavez. It appears that if someone says to you "capitalists aren't the perfection of God" you think the person is a commie or something.

No, that would be if someone came up to me and said socialism is superior to capitalism and capitalism is a failure. Then they get to deal with my big mouth.

Again, this isn't our argument.

But Chavez is making it the argument by being the jack ass that he is. So in other words you agree with me on that point.

[bloodyminded]

No, that would be if someone came up to me and said socialism is superior to capitalism and capitalism is a failure. Then they get to deal with my big mouth.

But I never said--nor vaguely hinted--at any such thing. I said that capitalism--like socialism--has failed Venezuela. Hardly a controversial assertion.

But Chavez is making it the argument by being the jack ass that he is. So in other words you agree with me on that point.

That Chavez is a jack ass? Of course I agree.

Edited January 29, 2010 by bloodyminded

[blueblood]

But I never said--nor vaguely hinted--at any such thing. I said that capitalism--like socialism--has failed Venezuela. Hardly a controversial assertion.

Mis management failed venezuela, not capitalism. Your going to have to show me some sources that state capitalism has failed venezuela, because all those oil deals have been pretty generous to venezuela throughout history. Not capitalism's fault they suck at management.

[bloodyminded]

Mis management failed venezuela, not capitalism. Your going to have to show me some sources that state capitalism has failed venezuela, because all those oil deals have been pretty generous to venezuela throughout history. Not capitalism's fault they suck at management.

This goes without saying. Obviously, it is human beings who are responsible. My apologies for offending the Sacred name of Jesu...I mean, of capitalism.

[Nash]

There's been a running argument on here about Senor Hugo Chavez, who stokes South American nationalism to 'white hot' as often as he can -- which is a lot. Some people say Chavez is a Messiah, sent to bring Cosmic Justice to Venezuela, in the form of a military-socialism with a nasty edge; there are others who insist he's a squat little military dictator who is trying to duplicate Castro's achievement.

Now it seems we are closer to an answer. Chavez has decreed that the value of Venezuelan currency ber cut to half of what it was the previous day.

Since the state oil company sells oil priced in American dollars, it puts the government in a much stronger fiscal position because it buys labour in Bolivars. He can use the money to nationalize the remaining big assets of the Venezuelan economy.

public dissatisfaction at frequent blackouts and water shortages and a 2.9 percent economic contraction in 2009, hope to strip Chavez of his legislative majority in September.

Comments?

Venezuela is fast nose diving to become an authoritarian state. A private TV channel has been forces to go off air. Free speech is under threat. Please read http://venezuelareport.wordpress.com/