Socialism on Rampage - Venezuelan “Economic War” Against the “Bourgeoi

[Pliny]

A government is supposed to protect it's citizens against fraud and extortion not, as Chavez is doing, maintain the right to their monopoly.

[dre]

well that would certainly be one big flaw of strong socialism (and citizens were allowed to move freely), that all the skilled people would leave to get more money elsewhere

Thats not the only big flaw in pure socialism. Both socialism and capitalism are absurd in their extremes and would never work for long.

All stable modern societies have a mixture of both.

[KeyStone]

I think that re-posting a defeated issue a second time is extremely undemocratic.

No doubt you are referring to term limits.

The first referendum packed a great number of sweeping changes, and was defeated by the voters.

The second referendum removed many of those provisions and made ending term limits the center piece.

Besides which, the US has various propositions that come up every election.

So, it really seems like you're grasping at straws to demonstrate Chavez is undemocratic.

[KeyStone]

well that would certainly be one big flaw of strong socialism (and citizens were allowed to move freely), that all the skilled people would leave to get more money elsewhere

If the Western world was truly concerned about their freedom, and not simply trying to undermine their economies, they would offer compensation for the skilled professionals that they take - in amount equal to the cost of training these individuals.

The US and other Western 'democracies' leech off of countries that provide quality universal education to make up for their gaps in education.

[KeyStone]

I have a few Jewish friends who recently made Aliyah to Israel from Venezuela, all of them cite the current political situation in their country of origin (i.e. ultra-communist dictator-wannabe Chavez) as at least part of the reason for their returning to their true home.

In other words, they don't want to share their wealth.

You clearly do not understand the terms communist or dictator if you use them in regards to Chavez.

It should be noted that a democratic process doesn't inherently ensure moral decisions.

As Israel proves ad infinitum.

Simply because Chavez may have legitimately won elections (which I have heard arguments against, given his increasing degree of control over the media and sharing of information and ideas),

There is plenty of negative media against Chavez. Yes, he has been hostile against media organizations who participated in illegally overthrowing the government through a military coup. The elections have been certified by the OAS, the EU and the Carter Center. No organization has found fault with the elections in Venezuela. The only ones to find fault were a couple of economists with a strong private-business agenda, and no political system background.

and passed laws through Venezuela's political process doesn't ensure that the decisions are moral or acceptable.

True, democracy does not ensure moral decisions all of the time. However, it astounds me the coverage that Venezuela gets when it comes to this sort of thing. Yes, they are marginalizing the upper class which is about 1 percent of the population. What about the lower class that comprises 85% and has been marginalized for the past 30 years? Do they not count?

What is so immoral about taking from foreign MNC's and the elite, to ensure universal healthcare, education, literacy, maternity leave, unemployment benefits, reduction of poverty etc. No, Chavez isn't perfect and there are things he could be doing better, but the way the Western media, and corporate shills single Chavez out, even suggesting he be killed, is absolutely outrageous. They are simply upset that he is leading the way in showing Latin America that they can actually extract their own minerals and oil, without giving away 80% of the profits to foreign companies, and that scare the West. We like the Latin American people to be kept in their place. We give them high-tech goods, they give us the minerals and oil, they couldn't get otherwise - and we like them to remain uneducated - as was the main emphasis of the IMF and World Bank until recently.

[blueblood]

True, democracy does not ensure moral decisions all of the time. However, it astounds me the coverage that Venezuela gets when it comes to this sort of thing. Yes, they are marginalizing the upper class which is about 1 percent of the population. What about the lower class that comprises 85% and has been marginalized for the past 30 years? Do they not count?

When your upper 1% has extremely good business, management, and capital it makes the country poorer. When you have class warfare, the country as a whole loses. Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, and China get it, why doesn't Venezuela?

Jack Layton makes a political career out of marginalizing the upper class, how are his poll numbers doing?

Barack Obama is at war with Wall Street, how did the democrats do in the primaries?

What is so immoral about taking from foreign MNC's and the elite, to ensure universal healthcare, education, literacy, maternity leave, unemployment benefits, reduction of poverty etc.

Would it be immoral for someone to go to your house and rob you so they can pay for health insurance, education, books, the wife to have babies, cash in the bank so they don't have to work, and an overall reduction in family poverty?

No, Chavez isn't perfect and there are things he could be doing better, but the way the Western media, and corporate shills single Chavez out, even suggesting he be killed, is absolutely outrageous. They are simply upset that he is leading the way in showing Latin America that they can actually extract their own minerals and oil, without giving away 80% of the profits to foreign companies, and that scare the West.

And how is Chavez going to get the capital to get the oil out of the ground? His idea of getting capital is letting foreign companies build an oil rig and then nationalizing it. Judging by the decline of GDP numbers in Venezuela compared to other emerging economies, the chickens are coming home to roost.

We like the Latin American people to be kept in their place. We give them high-tech goods, they give us the minerals and oil, they couldn't get otherwise - and we like them to remain uneducated - as was the main emphasis of the IMF and World Bank until recently.

Stop the madness!! Why would any company on the planet want poor customers? That cuts into the top line, and hurts growth. There's no giving. Venezuela only needs to look at next door to see how an emerging economy is achieving well over 5% GDP growth in the middle of a massive recession.

I would love to see an economist attempt to calculate the opportunity cost to Venezuela as a country because of Chavez's economic stupidity.

[Moonlight Graham]

If the Western world was truly concerned about their freedom, and not simply trying to undermine their economies, they would offer compensation for the skilled professionals that they take - in amount equal to the cost of training these individuals.

The US and other Western 'democracies' leech off of countries that provide quality universal education to make up for their gaps in education.

I will definitely agree that "brain drain" is a big problem for developing countries.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[bloodyminded]

Jack Layton makes a political career out of marginalizing the upper class, how are his poll numbers doing?

How can he "marginalize" a minority, marginal demographic?

Barack Obama is at war with Wall Street, how did the democrats do in the primaries?

!!!!

Barack Obama, who is a typical, centrist American capitalist, received more support from Wall Street than did his opponent. And Obama's economic policies--for better or worse--were generated from a bipartisan effort, including his opponent in the presidential election, and including his Republican predecessor.

Do you really wish to argue that 2+2 = 5?

Would it be immoral for someone to go to your house and rob you so they can pay for health insurance, education, books, the wife to have babies, cash in the bank so they don't have to work, and an overall reduction in family poverty?

Ah, taxes! Would it be immoral for someone to go to your house and rob you so they can pay for unpopular, controversial wars, without ever proving clear and unambiguous reasons why they should do so, and why you should pay for it?

[KeyStone]

When your upper 1% has extremely good business, management, and capital it makes the country poorer. When you have class warfare, the country as a whole loses. Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, and China get it, why doesn't Venezuela?

When the disparity of wealth is such that your upper class owns their own personal jets, but your lower class can't read and barely has enough to survive, something needs to change. Besides which, most of the gains of the poor have come at the expense of multinational and foreign corporations.

Jack Layton makes a political career out of marginalizing the upper class, how are his poll numbers doing?

Barack Obama is at war with Wall Street, how did the democrats do in the primaries?

Hahaha! Yes, clearly your two examples demonstrate that appealing to the poor can never work. Now, go tell that to Chavez as he starts his 12th year in office, after winning the last four elections.

Would it be immoral for someone to go to your house and rob you so they can pay for health insurance, education, books, the wife to have babies, cash in the bank so they don't have to work, and an overall reduction in family poverty?

Sure, but this isn't exactly the same thing now is it? Chavez has simply changed the formulas, so that they rich can not prosper the way they used to. He has taken over some land owned by people who had done nothing to develop it in the past ten years, and given compensation. He has also given compensation when taking over businesses, where there was a lack of competition in that business. Again, he gave compensation. I do agree that the takeovers have been both excessive and unpredictable creating a economic climate of uncertainly, which discourages investors.

In the case of the oil industries, he asked for the state to be a 50% partner. Most of the companies agreed, as even 50% was huge profit. The greedier ones such as Total SA and Conoco-Philips felt it wasn't enough and left, .

And how is Chavez going to get the capital to get the oil out of the ground? His idea of getting capital is letting foreign companies build an oil rig and then nationalizing it.

He still works with a number of foreign companies, who accept that a large part of the proceeds from the oil should be going to the Venezuelan people. He is also getting Venezuelan people trained to do the jobs by encouraging foreign companies to hire locals instead of foreigners to do the work. Not to mention he can just buy the equipment, and there are many governments willing to assist him, such as China and Iran.

Judging by the decline of GDP numbers in Venezuela compared to other emerging economies, the chickens are coming home to roost.

LOL! You're hysterical. Watching you grasp desperately at anything that could be seen as an indicator that the sky is falling in Venezuela is comical. Venezuela has had one of the highest GDP growth in the world over the past five years. Yes, they have had one negative year (2010) of 1.2%, preceded by five years of astounding growth. Meanwhile, Canada's GDP is set to shrink at over two percent.

Here are the last five years:

2005: +16.8%

2006: +9.3%

2007: +10.3%

2008: +8.4%

2009: 4.8%

2010: (projected): -1.5% (Canada -2.4%)

Stop the madness!! Why would any company on the planet want poor customers?

Do you mean why would any country/organization on the planet want to keep the population of a country uninformed and uneducated? Hmm, maybe so that the country is dependent on the West to extract their raw materials? Maybe so that the uneducated people are dependent on the West for telecommunications, engineering, construction, irrigation

That cuts into the top line, and hurts growth. There's no giving. Venezuela only needs to look at next door to see how an emerging economy is achieving well over 5% GDP growth in the middle of a massive recession.

You are doing a fine job of cherry picking economic data. I love how sheep such as yourself, not only believes the spin, but repeats it verbatim.

I would love to see an economist attempt to calculate the opportunity cost to Venezuela as a country because of Chavez's economic stupidity.

The opinions of economists are generally for sale to the highest bidder. Show me another country other than China that rivals Venezuela's economic growth in the past five years. They are one of the best in the world, and you're crying about one year where the GDP fell marginally.

Regardless of whether the economy might have grown more under a different economic environment, what good is it to have the economy grow an extra ten percent, if the wealth is still in the hands of a wealthy ten percent. There is a value to the lack of disparity between rich and poor, the accessibility of education and health care to all, and an increasing independence that Venezuela has on the West.

[Oleg Bach]

Mob rule frightens me. My kid is dating a girl from Chile--- I swear that back in the 70s they killed all the smart people and made EVERY body an engineer or math professor..handing out honourary degrees seemed to be a way to appease the murdering mob of socialists..Any how this girl is supposed to be a PHD..Chilean..well all I see is a dumb money grubbing peasant girl who is up here in Canada cleaning toilets and sending money back to the crooks in South America who are extorting her father for student loan payments...

Funny - socialism starts off nicely and always ends with some ruling elite that privatize certain sectors and live like parasites...

When socialism rears it's ugly head it is always controled by a jerk who's ambtition over rules his own good judgement - ALL socialism ends with the crimminal class ruling - look at Toronto - our left simply became rich overly privledged facist crimminals that suck the life out of the majority.

[GostHacked]

I thought you were a lawyer?

There is some irony in that statement of his, I think.. but this made me laugh.

[KeyStone]

I' m not really sure why you're comparing Chavez to Mussolini.

Granted, being popular does not make one right, nor does being democratic.

But I am not sure what evil it is that Chavez is perpetuating that people need to dismiss his democratic credibility.

Yes, he makes deals with China, Iran and Russia. But, they act the same as any foreign MNC, abiding by the percentage that he allows.

China and Russia are naturally allies, as they are sympathetic to his goals, and want him to succeed in Latin America.

Iran is an ally only because of OPEC familiarities and the common enemy of the United States, who persecutes them both unjustly.

The Western corporotocracies do all that they can to see Chavez fail, as they fear his ideas compromise the Western dominance over Latin American peoples. So, Chavez is left with few powerful governments he can turn to for assistance.

The US pushed Cuba into the same corner, when Cuba sought the aid of the Russians, after the US stripped them of all allies and trade partners. It looks as if they have not yet learned their lesson.

[blueblood]

When the disparity of wealth is such that your upper class owns their own personal jets, but your lower class can't read and barely has enough to survive, something needs to change. Besides which, most of the gains of the poor have come at the expense of multinational and foreign corporations.

And those corporations have taken their ball and are playing with the neighbours next door. The president's handpicked candidate did well in that election, and the poor seeing the benefits of FDI gave the handpicked candidate their vote of confidence. The sliding GDP numbers in Venezuela and rising numbers in Brazil and the rest of the continent are a testament to that.

Hahaha! Yes, clearly your two examples demonstrate that appealing to the poor can never work. Now, go tell that to Chavez as he starts his 12th year in office, after winning the last four elections.

Pretty easy to win elections through intimidation. Chavez can continue to lead a country of poor people while everyone else flees his madness.

Sure, but this isn't exactly the same thing now is it? Chavez has simply changed the formulas, so that they rich can not prosper the way they used to. He has taken over some land owned by people who had done nothing to develop it in the past ten years, and given compensation. He has also given compensation when taking over businesses, where there was a lack of competition in that business. Again, he gave compensation. I do agree that the takeovers have been both excessive and unpredictable creating a economic climate of uncertainly, which discourages investors.

If the rich don't prosper, no one does. Do you think rich people bury their money in the ground?

In the case of the oil industries, he asked for the state to be a 50% partner. Most of the companies agreed, as even 50% was huge profit. The greedier ones such as Total SA and Conoco-Philips felt it wasn't enough and left, .

No the smarter ones left. There's more profit elsewhere in the world.

He still works with a number of foreign companies, who accept that a large part of the proceeds from the oil should be going to the Venezuelan people. He is also getting Venezuelan people trained to do the jobs by encouraging foreign companies to hire locals instead of foreigners to do the work. Not to mention he can just buy the equipment, and there are many governments willing to assist him, such as China and Iran.

And who would those foreign companies be? He can have fun buying that equipment, and explaining that to his impoverished population.

LOL! You're hysterical. Watching you grasp desperately at anything that could be seen as an indicator that the sky is falling in Venezuela is comical. Venezuela has had one of the highest GDP growth in the world over the past five years. Yes, they have had one negative year (2010) of 1.2%, preceded by five years of astounding growth. Meanwhile, Canada's GDP is set to shrink at over two percent.

Here are the last five years:

2005: +16.8%

2006: +9.3%

2007: +10.3%

2008: +8.4%

2009: 4.8%

2010: (projected): -1.5% (Canada -2.4%)

I would like to know where you get those numbers from. Canada is to have positive growth of 2.7% in 2011, and 3.1% in 2010.

Hell even poor countries in Africa are projected to do better than Venezuela.

http://www.thestar.com/business/investing/article/889761--hitting-the-ceiling-in-emerging-markets

It's pretty embarassing for Chavez when Bangledesh has growth of 6.5% slated for 2011.

Do you mean why would any country/organization on the planet want to keep the population of a country uninformed and uneducated? Hmm, maybe so that the country is dependent on the West to extract their raw materials? Maybe so that the uneducated people are dependent on the West for telecommunications, engineering, construction, irrigation

Hmm, tinfoil hattery? China is dependant on the west to buy its products, yet allows for massive foreign investments, so does Brazil, India, etc. Companies are focused on growth and making more money. Keeping people and potential customers poor does not make them more money. Without the West buying their products and pumping money in, China would have been a disaster.

You are doing a fine job of cherry picking economic data. I love how sheep such as yourself, not only believes the spin, but repeats it verbatim.

I love how sheep such as yourself believe Chavez's spin. Who am I going to believe on fiscal policy, CEO's of investment funds/large corporations, or a Tin Pot dictator who can't compete with his neighbour.

The opinions of economists are generally for sale to the highest bidder. Show me another country other than China that rivals Venezuela's economic growth in the past five years. They are one of the best in the world, and you're crying about one year where the GDP fell marginally.

India, Brail, Russia, Vietnam, Ireland (pre housing bubble), South Africa, Australia, Indonesia, South Korea...

Regardless of whether the economy might have grown more under a different economic environment, what good is it to have the economy grow an extra ten percent, if the wealth is still in the hands of a wealthy ten percent. There is a value to the lack of disparity between rich and poor, the accessibility of education and health care to all, and an increasing independence that Venezuela has on the West.

Because a growing economy tends to provide jobs and more money in that economy. You seriously believe that wealthy people just bury their money in the ground. That wealthy ten percent is providing jobs, and capital for infrastructure/industry on a level no government can match. There is a much greater value to bettering the lives of the poor for a profit. That was a major reason western civilization got out of the dark ages in the 1400's, and is why we have growth in emerging markets in spite of a recession in established economies.

I would like to see what kind of education Chavez is providing, because if the people of Venezuela picked up on what was going on for the rest of the continent, Chavez would be rode out on a rail.

[jbg]

There is some irony in that statement of his, I think.. but this made me laugh.

It was meant as sarcastic.

[ToadBrother]

Regardless of whether the economy might have grown more under a different economic environment, what good is it to have the economy grow an extra ten percent, if the wealth is still in the hands of a wealthy ten percent. There is a value to the lack of disparity between rich and poor, the accessibility of education and health care to all, and an increasing independence that Venezuela has on the West.

By selling itself to China and Russia.

I'm not utterly rejecting the reasons for Chavez's popularity. Clearly the old guard did damned little to help the average Venezuelan, and just as clearly Chavez does enjoy a good deal of popularity. But he's still a populist tyrant. Let's remember here, Mussolini was incredibly popular in Italy, until his ego and his arrogance ended his lifeless corpse being strung up.

[KeyStone]

Pretty easy to win elections through intimidation. Chavez can continue to lead a country of poor people while everyone else flees his madness.

I know you didn't like the result, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Venezuelans like him. Every international organization of any credibility certified the elections as fair. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. You have some good points, but denying his rightful democratic victory is just flailing desperately.

If the rich don't prosper, no one does. Do you think rich people bury their money in the ground?

There is nothing wrong with some doing better than others, but it is the degree of disparity which defines a nation. Chavez would rather see the wealthy have twenty times the wealth of the poor than 5000. Yes, there are those that demand to make tens of millions a year, and Chavez won't tolerate that. If they leave the country, no great loss.

You also seem to be perpetuating the myth that if the wealthy get money, they will automatically invest it to create jobs. That's BS. They might invest it elsewhere. They might not invest it at all. If you give that same money to the poor, a much greater percentage of it will be spent in the local economy.

No the smarter ones left. There's more profit elsewhere in the world.

Fine. Venezuela's GDP is still soaring. Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal that they left.

I would like to know where you get those numbers from. Canada is to have positive growth of 2.7% in 2011, and 3.1% in 2010.

OK, the consensus seems to be that Canada is growing. That is the problem with projections, I suppose.

Regardless, you seem to be suggesting that this negative GDP is indicative of Chavez's failed economic policies, and a precursor to economic collapse.

But, if this small downward movement is so bad, wouldn't the previous give years of massive GDP growth, indicate successful economic policies? Your cherry picking of the data seems a little inconsistent. If decreasing GDP means bad governance, it should stand to reason that increasing GDP means good governance? But not to you, I guess. You can only see the bad in Venezuela - just like most of the Western media and corporations.

Let's wait and see what the real numbers are for 2010 and 2011, before hitting the panic button. The IMF and World Bank aren't huge fans of Venezuela.

Hmm, tinfoil hattery? China is dependant on the west to buy its products, yet allows for massive foreign investments, so does Brazil, India, etc. Companies are focused on growth and making more money. Keeping people and potential customers poor does not make them more money. Without the West buying their products and pumping money in, China would have been a disaster.

Venezuela is also dependent on other countries to buy its oil, but there seems to be no shortage of bidders. He does not need massive foreign investments. The money that was previously going to MNC's in the form of oil proceeds, is now being channeled back into the country, allowing for the creation of school, hospitals, infrastructure, and a growing number of state-run manufacturing facilities, allowing Venezuela to become independent from Western companies.

I love how sheep such as yourself believe Chavez's spin.

Seriously. Stop and think. Look at the previous GDP numbers. Venezuela had massive growth. You seem to just dismiss this.

Now that they have a small drop, you think the economy if falling apart, and it is proof positive of economic failure of his policies? I mean, if you can't recognize this, I might as well talk to a brick wall. I'm not saying you need to agree with everything I say, but at least look at the numbers, before you just agree with the corporate viewpoint.

Incidentally, my 'spin' is quite different from what Chavez is saying, who doesn't really seem to care what the West thinks and doesn't make any effort to appease them.

Who am I going to believe on fiscal policy, CEO's of investment funds/large corporations, or a Tin Pot dictator who can't compete with his neighbour.

Wow, it is amazing how many errors you can have in one sentence.

1) Corporations may have their own agenda, one of which could be to destabilize Venezuela as they are proposing a new economic model which shuts out a lot of Western countries from making huge profits in Latin America.

2) Chavez is not a dictator, by any stretch of the imagination, but I see you swallow and repeat the lines of Western media.

3) Yes, his neighbour outperformed him this year. It is like saying that San Francisco Giants are a much better team than the Yankees, because they won this year. Who would you put your money on next year to win the World Series?

Spend some time and research what is going on in Venezuela, by going to blogs, forums and reading other sources of media than just financial papers. The Western media hates Chavez. Peter Munk suggested we kill him off. If you actually saw the vast improvements to the quality of life for most Venezuelans (no, not the rich elite, who moved to Canada to avoid sharing), you would understand a little better.

People are not that stupid to vote in a leader who makes things much worse for them. And yet, you choose to believe Western media that Chavez is a horrible leader, rather than the people of the country who live there, and experience life under Chavez personally.

[blueblood]

I know you didn't like the result, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of Venezuelans like him. Every international organization of any credibility certified the elections as fair. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. You have some good points, but denying his rightful democratic victory is just flailing desperately.

I'm not denying his democratic victory, I'm criticizing his methods. If you don't think he intimidated his opponents you are living in fantasy land.

There is nothing wrong with some doing better than others, but it is the degree of disparity which defines a nation. Chavez would rather see the wealthy have twenty times the wealth of the poor than 5000. Yes, there are those that demand to make tens of millions a year, and Chavez won't tolerate that. If they leave the country, no great loss.

No great loss. That's tens of millions of dollars out of that economy. If any CEO was responsible for the loss of tens of millions of dollars in company on the upswing, he would be fired. How do you suppose Chavez pay for upgrading his economy when he is chasing out all of his capital. Do you think that oil is a cash machine. Chavez is wasting a fortune through opportunity cost. We have an example in the case of PotashCorp of why private equity is a much better form of financing than the government. Chavez cannot upgrade his oil industry to levels around the world and still pay for his poor people crusade with just government money. He has a choice, he can do a full upgrade on his oil industry or the poor people crusade, he only has so much money.

You also seem to be perpetuating the myth that if the wealthy get money, they will automatically invest it to create jobs. That's BS. They might invest it elsewhere. They might not invest it at all. If you give that same money to the poor, a much greater percentage of it will be spent in the local economy.

That's not myth that's reality. If you think the wealthy sit on a mountain of cash you need to take some management classes. Sitting on a mountain of cash costs money through opportunity cost.

Fine. Venezuela's GDP is still soaring. Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal that they left.

Your numbers show a decline year over year for the past 3 yrs. If Bangledesh has better GDP growth than a country floating on oil, you have a problem

OK, the consensus seems to be that Canada is growing. That is the problem with projections, I suppose.

Regardless, you seem to be suggesting that this negative GDP is indicative of Chavez's failed economic policies, and a precursor to economic collapse.

That is the most recent projection. This is coming from the Star no less. I'm suggesting that Chavez's ridiculous policies are making his people poorer than they need to be and is hindering his countries economic growth. An emerging market floating on oil should have had 15+% growth consistently considering the growing middle class and exports of a valuable commodity to huge markets like the US and China.

But, if this small downward movement is so bad, wouldn't the previous give years of massive GDP growth, indicate successful economic policies? Your cherry picking of the data seems a little inconsistent. If decreasing GDP means bad governance, it should stand to reason that increasing GDP means good governance? But not to you, I guess. You can only see the bad in Venezuela - just like most of the Western media and corporations.

I see the bad when Tinpot dictators purposely impoverish their people so they can vote him into power. If anyone wants to keep people poor, it's Chavez. Without poor people Chavez has no political platform.

Let's wait and see what the real numbers are for 2010 and 2011, before hitting the panic button. The IMF and World Bank aren't huge fans of Venezuela.

This is what happens when you have Tin Pot dictators running the country and proposing ridiculous economic policy which is unnecessarily impoverishing the country.

Venezuela is also dependent on other countries to buy its oil, but there seems to be no shortage of bidders. He does not need massive foreign investments. The money that was previously going to MNC's in the form of oil proceeds, is now being channeled back into the country, allowing for the creation of school, hospitals, infrastructure, and a growing number of state-run manufacturing facilities, allowing Venezuela to become independent from Western companies.

Norway uses state run oil companies, yet they seem to need private equity as they are listed on various stock exchanges. I wonder what that would be for?

Brazil has a pro-business government which is dedicated to making a growing middle class. They don't seem to feel the need to raid MNC's or foreign investment, and their people are in a much better situation than in Venezuela. Brazil's cut from FDI is larger than the pathetic returns of Chavez's nationalized companies which apparently go to helping out the poor. North American's get richer by investing in Brazil, and the Brazilians get richer through a booming economy.

Seriously. Stop and think. Look at the previous GDP numbers. Venezuela had massive growth. You seem to just dismiss this.

Now that they have a small drop, you think the economy if falling apart, and it is proof positive of economic failure of his policies? I mean, if you can't recognize this, I might as well talk to a brick wall. I'm not saying you need to agree with everything I say, but at least look at the numbers, before you just agree with the corporate viewpoint

.

Now your pulling at straws, a drop from alledgedly 10+ down to -1.5% is a disaster. By your numbers Venezuela went from a booming economy to recession in 3 short years, in spite of being a relatively closed economy. Thats as bad as the US if not worse. I'll go with the corporate viewpoint because they are interested in making themselves and their customers more money.

Incidentally, my 'spin' is quite different from what Chavez is saying, who doesn't really seem to care what the West thinks and doesn't make any effort to appease them.

And his people are poorer because of it. Poor people that can read and write. What good is an education if you can't use it?

Wow, it is amazing how many errors you can have in one sentence.

1) Corporations may have their own agenda, one of which could be to destabilize Venezuela as they are proposing a new economic model which shuts out a lot of Western countries from making huge profits in Latin America

Proof? Most if not all corporations are into developing markets because of a potential for customers. Whats good for Western Countries is also good for Latin America. Brazil gets it.

2) Chavez is not a dictator, by any stretch of the imagination, but I see you swallow and repeat the lines of Western media.

Fine, he's an elected Dictator who feels the need to fool around with the constitution so he can stay in power. He's no better than Mugabe.

3) Yes, his neighbour outperformed him this year. It is like saying that San Francisco Giants are a much better team than the Yankees, because they won this year. Who would you put your money on next year to win the World Series?

The trend is your friend, I'll go with his neighbours any day of the week. Third world countries are outperforming him, for an emerging economy that's unacceptable.

Spend some time and research what is going on in Venezuela, by going to blogs, forums and reading other sources of media than just financial papers. The Western media hates Chavez. Peter Munk suggested we kill him off. If you actually saw the vast improvements to the quality of life for most Venezuelans (no, not the rich elite, who moved to Canada to avoid sharing), you would understand a little better.

I understand that if you think a country has such a good system in that people want to flee it, it's time for a reality check. It's not hard to improve the quality of life for people when they have nothing. Yet the Venezuelans for the most part are still poor. Being poor is not an improvement of the quality of life, all they are is poor people that can read and write.

People are not that stupid to vote in a leader who makes things much worse for them. And yet, you choose to believe Western media that Chavez is a horrible leader, rather than the people of the country who live there, and experience life under Chavez personally.

That's crazy. Poor people support organized crime because they do little things for them to buy their support. Unfortunately they are still poor. Chavez is giving his poor people just enough perks to show an improvement while still keeping them poor, its disgusting and typical thug behavior. Chavez knows that if he had a middle class surge like Brazil, his days are toast. One day the Venezuelans who can read and write will realize if Chavez is such a good leader with a country floating on oil, why is Jose in Brazil so much better off than I am?

[dre]

I'm not denying his democratic victory, I'm criticizing his methods. If you don't think he intimidated his opponents you are living in fantasy land.

No great loss. That's tens of millions of dollars out of that economy. If any CEO was responsible for the loss of tens of millions of dollars in company on the upswing, he would be fired. How do you suppose Chavez pay for upgrading his economy when he is chasing out all of his capital. Do you think that oil is a cash machine. Chavez is wasting a fortune through opportunity cost. We have an example in the case of PotashCorp of why private equity is a much better form of financing than the government. Chavez cannot upgrade his oil industry to levels around the world and still pay for his poor people crusade with just government money. He has a choice, he can do a full upgrade on his oil industry or the poor people crusade, he only has so much money.

That's not myth that's reality. If you think the wealthy sit on a mountain of cash you need to take some management classes. Sitting on a mountain of cash costs money through opportunity cost.

Your numbers show a decline year over year for the past 3 yrs. If Bangledesh has better GDP growth than a country floating on oil, you have a problem

That is the most recent projection. This is coming from the Star no less. I'm suggesting that Chavez's ridiculous policies are making his people poorer than they need to be and is hindering his countries economic growth. An emerging market floating on oil should have had 15+% growth consistently considering the growing middle class and exports of a valuable commodity to huge markets like the US and China.

I see the bad when Tinpot dictators purposely impoverish their people so they can vote him into power. If anyone wants to keep people poor, it's Chavez. Without poor people Chavez has no political platform.

This is what happens when you have Tin Pot dictators running the country and proposing ridiculous economic policy which is unnecessarily impoverishing the country.

Norway uses state run oil companies, yet they seem to need private equity as they are listed on various stock exchanges. I wonder what that would be for?

Brazil has a pro-business government which is dedicated to making a growing middle class. They don't seem to feel the need to raid MNC's or foreign investment, and their people are in a much better situation than in Venezuela. Brazil's cut from FDI is larger than the pathetic returns of Chavez's nationalized companies which apparently go to helping out the poor. North American's get richer by investing in Brazil, and the Brazilians get richer through a booming economy.

.

Now your pulling at straws, a drop from alledgedly 10+ down to -1.5% is a disaster. By your numbers Venezuela went from a booming economy to recession in 3 short years, in spite of being a relatively closed economy. Thats as bad as the US if not worse. I'll go with the corporate viewpoint because they are interested in making themselves and their customers more money.

And his people are poorer because of it. Poor people that can read and write. What good is an education if you can't use it?

Proof? Most if not all corporations are into developing markets because of a potential for customers. Whats good for Western Countries is also good for Latin America. Brazil gets it.

Fine, he's an elected Dictator who feels the need to fool around with the constitution so he can stay in power. He's no better than Mugabe.

The trend is your friend, I'll go with his neighbours any day of the week. Third world countries are outperforming him, for an emerging economy that's unacceptable.

I understand that if you think a country has such a good system in that people want to flee it, it's time for a reality check. It's not hard to improve the quality of life for people when they have nothing. Yet the Venezuelans for the most part are still poor. Being poor is not an improvement of the quality of life, all they are is poor people that can read and write.

That's crazy. Poor people support organized crime because they do little things for them to buy their support. Unfortunately they are still poor. Chavez is giving his poor people just enough perks to show an improvement while still keeping them poor, its disgusting and typical thug behavior. Chavez knows that if he had a middle class surge like Brazil, his days are toast. One day the Venezuelans who can read and write will realize if Chavez is such a good leader with a country floating on oil, why is Jose in Brazil so much better off than I am?

The problem with you blaming all this on Chavez is that things were just as bad or worse for people under Perez.

[Jack Weber]

For the people who seem to really dislike Chavez,and his attempts to usurp the Venezuelan constitution are serious cause for concern...

What would the option be if not Chavez?

Would it be to return to the oil oligarchs running the country?

[KeyStone]

I'm not denying his democratic victory, I'm criticizing his methods. If you don't think he intimidated his opponents you are living in fantasy land.

Alright, I'll admit that there has been some intimidation of political opponents. But, you have to realize that there are unusual circumstances in Venezuela. Firstly, the media, the US consulate, and the opposition all conspired to have an illegal coup, physically removing Chavez from office, and they would have succeeded if it were not for the people rising up in millions to demand his return to power. The leader of the Honduras was not so fortunate.

Secondly, the elites tried to destroy the country by having massive strikes all around, and forcing their workers to do the same. These strikes were not aimed at better wages and benefits for the workers, but instead were aimed at sabotaging the country to oust Chavez. These people were so reluctant to see the status quo changed, that they would rather destroy their own economy than endure Chavez to lead.

No great loss. That's tens of millions of dollars out of that economy. If any CEO was responsible for the loss of tens of millions of dollars in company on the upswing, he would be fired.

it's like this. The country can make 100 Billion dollars, and have 90 billion in the hands of the top ten percent, and 10 billion in the hands of ninety percent. Or they can make 90 billion dollars, and have 30 billion in the hands of the top ten percent, and 60 billion in the hands of the other ninety.

Chavez cannot upgrade his oil industry to levels around the world and still pay for his poor people crusade with just government money. He has a choice, he can do a full upgrade on his oil industry or the poor people crusade, he only has so much money.

So, the third option is forget about the poor. Let the foreign companies control it all and take all the profits, and hope that some of the money trickles down. Geez, that worked so well for the last thirty years. Let's try it some more. Why exactly do you think people were so hungry for a leader like Chavez in the first place?

How do you suppose Chavez pay for upgrading his economy when he is chasing out all of his capital. Do you think that oil is a cash machine. Chavez is wasting a fortune through opportunity cost.

Do you know how much oil companies were paying in royalties for the Orinoco oil? One percent. Sure, they paid some of the local immigrants a few dollars a day to work in the fields, while paying foreign workers ten times as much. Venezuela can do much better than that by managing it themselves.

And yes, I do think oil is a cash machine. Instead of giving foreign oil companies $50 billion, he now gives them $20 billion, and he can just invest the other $25 billion himself. (the other $5 billion represents productivity loss).

Sure, you can look, and say the country is less productive, but for ninety percent of the people, they are better off.

Quote

You also seem to be perpetuating the myth that if the wealthy get money, they will automatically invest it to create jobs. That's BS. They might invest it elsewhere. They might not invest it at all. If you give that same money to the poor, a much greater percentage of it will be spent in the local economy.

That's not myth that's reality. If you think the wealthy sit on a mountain of cash you need to take some management classes. Sitting on a mountain of cash costs money through opportunity cost.

The myth is that foreign multi-national companies will reinvest in ways that will help the people of Venezuela. They could invest in other countries, or bring in more foreign equipment and workers, none of which really helps the people of Venezuela, unless they are getting a big piece of the profits.

Your numbers show a decline year over year for the past 3 yrs. If Bangledesh has better GDP growth than a country floating on oil, you have a problem

Sustaining the kind of growth that they have had, would be insane. No economy could manage that.

Any country would be thrilled to have 23% growth over the past three years.

You're really trying desperately to find some economic indicators that the economy is collapsing, here aren't you?

You do know that Chavez has been in power long before these three years of declining increases?

That is the most recent projection. This is coming from the Star no less. I'm suggesting that Chavez's ridiculous policies are making his people poorer than they need to be and is hindering his countries economic growth.

No, his policies are making the elite poorer than they were. The lower class which now have free healthcare, free education, maternity leave, unemployment insurance, are doing better than ever. But feel free to paint the picture of abject poverty as the result of Chavez coupled with armed guards forcing people to vote for him. It seems that you are determined to believe that at all costs.

Ignore the fact that GDP went up nearly 50% in the 5 years from 2004-2008

Ignore the fact that the poverty rate decreased from 55% to 27% since Chavez took office. (does not even include free benefits)

Ignore the fact that social spending is now three times greater (adjusted for inflation) per capita.

Ignore the fact that income inequality has declined significantly.

Ignore the fact that enrollment in schools has doubled.

Ignore the fact that infant mortality rates have declined by over 30%

Instead focus on the Western media 'sky if falling' in Venezuela headlines, just as you're told to.

[blueblood]

Alright, I'll admit that there has been some intimidation of political opponents. But, you have to realize that there are unusual circumstances in Venezuela. Firstly, the media, the US consulate, and the opposition all conspired to have an illegal coup, physically removing Chavez from office, and they would have succeeded if it were not for the people rising up in millions to demand his return to power. The leader of the Honduras was not so fortunate.

Now that we have established that there has been intimidation, you now have to make excuses for it. The Soviets made those same excuses.

Secondly, the elites tried to destroy the country by having massive strikes all around, and forcing their workers to do the same. These strikes were not aimed at better wages and benefits for the workers, but instead were aimed at sabotaging the country to oust Chavez. These people were so reluctant to see the status quo changed, that they would rather destroy their own economy than endure Chavez to lead.

Don't worry, Chavez is doing a fine job of that. Floating on oil, potential emerging market and negative GDP growth.

it's like this. The country can make 100 Billion dollars, and have 90 billion in the hands of the top ten percent, and 10 billion in the hands of ninety percent. Or they can make 90 billion dollars, and have 30 billion in the hands of the top ten percent, and 60 billion in the hands of the other ninety.

And this is how we make a country poorer. All that capital and job creation power goes next door.

Not only that, pro-Business Brazil has a faster growing middle class

http://www.propertybrazil.com/news/the-emerging-middle-class-in-brazil-25

So, the third option is forget about the poor. Let the foreign companies control it all and take all the profits, and hope that some of the money trickles down. Geez, that worked so well for the last thirty years. Let's try it some more. Why exactly do you think people were so hungry for a leader like Chavez in the first place?

It's worked for Ireland, Canada, USA, China, India, Australia, South Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Brazil, Europe, South Africa. Ask Castro how going to war with foreign investment is going, he has an island full of poor people, but they are educated.

Do you know how much oil companies were paying in royalties for the Orinoco oil? One percent. Sure, they paid some of the local immigrants a few dollars a day to work in the fields, while paying foreign workers ten times as much. Venezuela can do much better than that by managing it themselves.

Do you know how much an inventor gets for royalties? Try 3%. A resource is only good if it can be exploited. By Chavez being a capital douche-bag, he is costing his country billions in opportunity costs and impoverishing them. His neighbour next door gets the program and Brazil has one of the fastest growing middle classes on the planet.

And yes, I do think oil is a cash machine. Instead of giving foreign oil companies $50 billion, he now gives them $20 billion, and he can just invest the other $25 billion himself. (the other $5 billion represents productivity loss).

That's 5 billion dollars the world is poorer thanks to Chavez's madness. Do you know how royalty rates work. Chavez doesn't give the oil companies money. The oil companies give Chavez money. No oil companies=No oil coming out of the ground = no revenue from resource = poorer country.

Sure, you can look, and say the country is less productive, but for ninety percent of the people, they are better off.

According to you. Does Venezuela have a rapidly rising middle class? No they are still poor hoping for the next little carrot Chavez throws their way to buy an election.

You also seem to be perpetuating the myth that if the wealthy get money, they will automatically invest it to create jobs. That's BS. They might invest it elsewhere. They might not invest it at all. If you give that same money to the poor, a much greater percentage of it will be spent in the local economy.

And you perpetuate the myth that if wealthy get money they sit on it. Do you not know what opportunity cost is? Shall we bring up my list of countries that have a much better situation than Venezuela that enjoy the benefits of FDI and not punishing the wealthy? The Soviet Union tried that experiment of yours, and where is that country now.

The myth is that foreign multi-national companies will reinvest in ways that will help the people of Venezuela. They could invest in other countries, or bring in more foreign equipment and workers, none of which really helps the people of Venezuela, unless they are getting a big piece of the profits.

What myth, the evidence is all of the emerging countries around the world that are enjoying high GDP growth in spite of a recession. Your numbers say that Venezuela is in recession right now. Hell even the USA isn't in recession anymore.

Sustaining the kind of growth that they have had, would be insane. No economy could manage that.

Any country would be thrilled to have 23% growth over the past three years.

You're really trying desperately to find some economic indicators that the economy is collapsing, here aren't you?

You do know that Chavez has been in power long before these three years of declining increases?

And your trying desperately to find excuses for Chavez who isn't fit to run a lemonade stand.

No, his policies are making the elite poorer than they were. The lower class which now have free healthcare, free education, maternity leave, unemployment insurance, are doing better than ever. But feel free to paint the picture of abject poverty as the result of Chavez coupled with armed guards forcing people to vote for him. It seems that you are determined to believe that at all costs.

The lower class are still lower class. There is no such thing as free healthcare, free education etc. who's going to pay for that when all the capital leaves the country and Chavez has no money to develop his resources?

Ignore the fact that GDP went up nearly 50% in the 5 years from 2004-2008

Ignore the fact that the poverty rate decreased from 55% to 27% since Chavez took office. (does not even include free benefits)

Ignore the fact that social spending is now three times greater (adjusted for inflation) per capita.

Ignore the fact that income inequality has declined significantly.

Ignore the fact that enrollment in schools has doubled.

Ignore the fact that infant mortality rates have declined by over 30%

And you can ignore the facts that he keeps his people poorer than they should be compared to other countries in the world which have more favorable business policies and don't punish those who succeed.

Instead focus on the Western media 'sky if falling' in Venezuela headlines, just as you're told to.

No, I just have history on my side. Equity and Debt are better tools for financing than forcibly taking money from people.

[Argus]

(This was the case in pre-coup Honduras, at any rate: during the election, whether or not there was to be a referendum was to be voted on....this was the so-called "constitutional crisis" which led to the illegal ouster of the president and the founding of a dictatorship...which, evidently, is not a "constitutional crisis." )

Where do you get off saying the ouster was illegal when their own supreme court okayed it? Are you some sort of scholar on Honduran law?

[Argus]

If the rich don't prosper, no one does. Do you think rich people bury their money in the ground?

While I have no love of Chavez I think we're past the days when we would say what's good for GM is good for the country. The tax rate for the wealthier 10% of Americans was far, far higher a half century ago, and they controlled far less wealth, and yet Americans - and Canadians - still look back on the Fifties as a golden era of prosperity.

BTW, that tax rate for the wealthy was deliberately raised because it was felt, by Roosevelt and others, that too high a percentage of wealth was in too few hands, and that this was not good for the health of a society.

The percentage of wealth in the hands of the few at the top is far higher now than when Roosevelt acted. Anyone calling this a golden age of prosperity?

[bush_cheney2004]

....The tax rate for the wealthier 10% of Americans was far, far higher a half century ago, and they controlled far less wealth, and yet Americans - and Canadians - still look back on the Fifties as a golden era of prosperity.

This is patently false...and a favorite myth. Marginal tax rates in the United States as of 1960 (half century ago) were only extreme for the top 1% of earners, and only then after high income thresholds. The United States is not the same as Canada.

http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/

[blueblood]

While I have no love of Chavez I think we're past the days when we would say what's good for GM is good for the country. The tax rate for the wealthier 10% of Americans was far, far higher a half century ago, and they controlled far less wealth, and yet Americans - and Canadians - still look back on the Fifties as a golden era of prosperity.

The 90's when Reagan's tax slashing policies came to bear fruit were also a golden era of prosperity. Also the longest period of economic expansion.

BTW, that tax rate for the wealthy was deliberately raised because it was felt, by Roosevelt and others, that too high a percentage of wealth was in too few hands, and that this was not good for the health of a society.

Lucky for him WW2 came along and saved his bacon. Roosevelt isn't somebody I'd pay attention to as far as economic policy goes

The percentage of wealth in the hands of the few at the top is far higher now than when Roosevelt acted. Anyone calling this a golden age of prosperity?

That depends where you live. In my industry, I'm in a golden age of prosperity.