|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:17 pm Post subject: Chavez running oil-rich Venezuela into the ground. |
 |
|
Chavez running oil-rich Venezuela's economy into the ground.
| Quote: |
Faced with an accelerating inflation rate and shortages of basic foods like beef, chicken and milk, President Hugo Ch�vez has threatened to jail grocery store owners and nationalize their businesses if they violate the country�s expanding price controls.
Food producers and economists say the measures announced late Thursday night, which include removing three zeroes from the denomination of Venezuela�s currency, are likely to backfire and generate even more acute shortages and higher prices for consumers. Inflation climbed to an annual rate of 18.4 percent a year in January, the highest in Latin America and far above the official target of 10 to 12 percent.
Mr. Ch�vez, whose leftist populism remains highly popular among Venezuela�s poor and working classes, seemed unfazed by criticism of his policies. Appearing live on national television, he called for the creation of �committees of social control,� essentially groups of his political supporters whose purpose would be to report on farmers, ranchers, supermarket owners and street vendors who circumvent the state�s effort to control food prices.
�It is surreal that we�ve arrived at a point where we are in danger of squandering a major oil boom,� said Jos� Guerra, a former chief of economic research at Venezuela�s central bank, who left Mr. Chavez�s government in 2004. �If the government insists on sticking to policies that are clearly failing, we may be headed down the road of Zimbabwe.�....
In an indicator of concern with Mr. Ch�vez�s economic policies, which included nationalizing companies in the telephone and electricity industries, foreign direct investment was negative in the first nine months of 2006. The last year Venezuela had a net investment outflow was in 1986.
Shortages of basic foods have been sporadic since the government strengthened price controls in 2003 after a debilitating strike by oil workers. But in recent weeks, the scarcity of items like meat and chicken have led to a panicked reaction by federal authorities as they try to understand how such shortages could develop in a seemingly flourishing economy.
Entering a supermarket here is a bizarre experience. Shelves are fully stocked with Scotch whiskey, Argentine wines and imported cheeses like brie and Camembert, but basic staples like black beans and desirable cuts of beef like sirloin are often absent. Customers, even those in the government�s own Mercal chain of subsidized grocery stores, are left with choices like pork neck bones, rabbit and unusual cuts of lamb.
With shoppers limited to just two large packages of sugar, a black market in sugar has developed among street vendors in parts of Caracas. �This country is going to turn into Cuba, or Ch�vez will have to give in,� said C�ndida de G�mez, 54, a shopper at a private supermarket in Los Palos Grandes, a district in the capital....
Fears that more private companies could be nationalized have put further pressure on the currency as rich Venezuelans try to take money out of the country. Concern over capital flight has made the government jittery, with vague threats issued to newspapers that publish unofficial currency rates (officially the bol�var is quoted at about 2,150 to the dollar)....
But recent expropriations of farms and ranches, part of Mr. Ch�vez�s effort to empower state-financed cooperatives, have also weighed on domestic food production as the new managers retool operations. So has the flood of petrodollars into the economy, easing food imports and making some domestic producers uncompetitive, an affliction common to oil economies.
�There seems to be a basic misunderstanding in Ch�vez�s government of what is driving scarcity and inflation,� said Francisco Rodr�guez, a former chief economist at Venezuela�s National Assembly who teaches at Wesleyan University.
�There are competent people in the government who know that Ch�vez needs to lower spending if he wants to defeat these problems,� Mr. Rodr�guez said. �But there are few people in positions of power who are willing to risk telling him what he needs to hear.� |
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/americas/17venezuela.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
I very much agree with this comment from danieldrezner's blog:
| Quote: |
Is this a surprise to anyone? We all know what happens next:
1) More shortages and more repression
2) Chavez elects himself "President for Life"
3) People start fleeing the country
4) More shortages and repression
5) Chavez starts winning elections with 99.98% of the vote
5) Miami adds to its cultural diversity
6) More shortages and repression
7) Liberals express surprise/denial at these developments
How many more times does this have to happen? |
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003167.html
Reminds me of this,
| Quote: |
When Hoover Institution historian Robert Conquest used newly available data from the Soviet Union to update The Great Terror, his account of Stalin's murderous purges of the 1930s, his publishers asked for a new title. "How about I Told You So, You Fu%king Fools?" Conquest suggested. |
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29095.html
It is all so easy to predict.
Now, on to those claims that Chavez has lessened poverty. Bul!sh!t too, it seems.
| Quote: |
The biggest challenge to evaluating Ch�vez�s success in poverty reduction is disentangling fantasy from reality in official announcements and data. One example is the government�s claim of having eradicated illiteracy by teaching 1.5 million Venezuelans how to read and write. Several colleagues and I analyzed the veracity of this claim by studying official Venezuelan government data. According to our estimates, in the second school semester of 2005, there were still 1,014,441 illiterate Venezuelans over the age of 15, only slightly less than the estimate of 1,107,793 people at the start of the program. Even this small reduction can be traced back primarily to changes in the demographic composition of the population.
Similar inconsistencies can be found almost everywhere in the government claims. The administration says it mobilized more than 3 percent of the labor force to work in social programs called misiones, but official employment statistics show no evidence that these people were ever employed, and official budget figures show no evidence that they were ever paid. Estimates of the percentage of Venezuelans with access to sanitation services derived from government data are also inconsistent with official claims of large improvements.
But if Ch�vez�s social policies are not working, why did he win such a clear victory in the December elections? The explanation lies largely in Venezuela�s economic growth. The country has experienced three straight years of near-double-digit growth, partly because of the recovery from the 2003 national strike and partly because of the dramatic increase in worldwide oil prices. If there is one universal rule of voting behavior, it is that incumbents do well when the economy is growing. |
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3685
So, I've been arguing on this site that this would happen for 3 years. You cannot violate basic market-economics. You cannot trust the statistics of a "revolutionary" government. You can not declare yourself to rule by presidential edict and still be a democracy.
Last edited by thepeel on Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| who gives a shit? those idiots elected him, they deserve what they get...I wish them a complete meltdown, maybe someone will get pissed enough to kill chavez, big bird's hero |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| People start fleeing the country...Miami adds to its cultural diversity. |
I was in Miami Christmas break and saw this for myself, at least while talking with several Venezuelans now living there working in offices, etc. This part has already been in progress for some time.
And this...
| Quote: |
| Chavez elects himself "President for Life." |
Implicitly already done. Has he not already "modified" Venezuela's constitution? Has he not also begun concentrating all state power (namely, legislative) in his own hands as well?
Does anyone really believe that this man will ever willingly step down from office? He is no Pinochet or Ortega, mind you; he is a Castro.
Liberals do not notice these things. They merely see a guy sticking it to America and they cheer -- come what may. Same thing with a nuclear-armed Tehran.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:27 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about this for a very true statement. You can literally hear the lefty circuits frying when they read:
George W. Bush is a better president than Hugo Chavez.
And it is true.
Satan has been out-Sataned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Where is my straw-man? Or, do you even know what that means?
(interesting that you totally avoid the topic of the abject failure of the left's latest hero chavez and instantly jump on Gopher and I... I wonder why you do that....didn't that happen in the cold war too? What does spinoza say? About insanity. nah.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The fires! They burn! They burn!
My precious liberal straw! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So, you aren't able to argue, eh? Just sarcastically comment and not really add? Why would that be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Twg: funny cartoon. That notwithstanding, you can easily put this matter to rest...
What is your position on Hugo Chavez? Prove me wrong.
(Standing by for a straight answer.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Chavez elects himself "President for Life." |
Implicitly already done. Has he not already "modified" Venezuela's constitution? Has he not also begun concentrating all state power (namely, legislative) in his own hands as well?
Does anyone really believe that this man will ever willingly step down from office? He is no Pinochet or Ortega, mind you; he is a Castro.
Liberals do not notice these things. They merely see a guy sticking it to America and they cheer -- come what may. Same thing with a nuclear-armed Tehran. |
He's getting all this power through a democratic process. If you think otherwise, prove it.
Pinochet and Ortega strike me as much more distasteful than Castro. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sincinnati: you call modifying the constitution whenever it suits you so that you will never leave the presidency, or concentrating legislative and judicial power in your own hands, or suppressing and intimidating oppositionist media elements "democratic?"
Sure, Chavez has apparently won popular elections. But so did Hitler, Castro, and Pinochet (I refer to 1980). You call them "democratic," too? You are focusing on a technicality, an election, and deeming the entire process "democratic." But "a democratic process" is much more than an election, Sincinnati. You point to the single note and ignore the absence of the symphony.
In any case, why do you dismiss the views of those Venezuelans who are fleeing Venezuela? Why would people flee a democracy?
Regarding Chavez's commitment to "democracy," do you recall how he got his start in politics? What about Mexico and Peru's complaints -- among others -- that he has covertly intervened in their political processes? How can Chavez, on the one hand, demand "go to hell, gringos!" for interfering in his own project (whatever you chose to call it) while at the same time he demands and alleges that the United States Congress investigate W. Bush's role in perpetrating 9/11...?
And, finally, why are you defending Chavez's position, Sincinnati?
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not defending shit.
I don't see any declaration that "this is morally acceptable."
walk me through it if you see one.
You still have done nothing but say "OMG I CANT BELIEVE YOU THINK HE IS REALLY POPULARLY ELECTED."
Hitler was not popularly elected.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm
| Quote: |
Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.
Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.
Summary
Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him was generally quite strong. Hitler therefore would have never seen the light of day had the German Republic been truly democratic. Unfortunately, its otherwise sound constitution contained a few fatal flaws. The German leaders also had a weak devotion to democracy, and some were actively plotting to overthrow it. Hitler furthermore enjoyed an almost unbroken string of luck in coming to power. He benefited greatly from the Great Depression, the half-senility of the president, the incompetence of his opposition, and the appearance of an unnecessary backroom deal just as the Nazis were starting to lose popular appeal and votes.
Argument
Critics of democracy often claim that Hitler was democratically elected to power. This is untrue. Hitler never had the popular votes to become Chancellor of Germany, and the only reason he got the job was because the German leaders entered into a series of back-room deals. Some claim that Hitler's rise was nonetheless legal under the German system. The problem is that what was "legal" under the German system would not be considered legal under a truer and better-working democracy. In a democracy along the lines of the United States or Great Britain, Hitler could have never risen to power. |
What, besides an election, defines a democratic process? Do tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| I'm not defending *beep*. |
Again, easy to straighten out.
What is your position on Chavez?
(Still standing by for a straight answer. All I see here is your reacting in the usual defensive way when others point to Chavez the Righteous Petty Tyrant's [or Tehran the Fundamentalist Theocracy's] very real problems...)
Also, I am very well aware of Hitler's strength in the elections that brought him to power. The Weimar Republic had many problems, not to mention its extreme polarization towards the end. But did you know that one can say the exact same thing about Allende's election, too? As you may know, Sincinnati, Allende won the presidency with about the same plurality as Hitler (36.3%). And he also secured his victory through backroom deals with Congress (the so-called Constitutional Guarantees the Christian Democrats forced him to sign if he wanted their confirmation in the run-off election -- the guarantees, incidentally, Regis Debray later gloated that Allende had signed with "his fingers crossed behind his back...").
So, then. Do you also denounce Allende's presidency as "not popularly elected," Sincinnati? And do you also know that "in a democracy along the lines of the United States or Great Britain, [Allende] could have never risen to power?"
Same goes for Chavez, I might add -- since a guy who began his political career attempting to use military force to overthrow the constitutional order would be disqualified from political office, as you well know...
So, again, why do you object to those who would criticize Chavez, caudillo, tyrant?
Finally, relax. I am not arguing to establish a pretext that would justify American action against Chavez anymore than I would argue to establish a pretext that might justify American action against Tehran. Get past that. Look at Chavez. Why are you defending his position?
And how can you look at incidents like this and talk about "democratic processes?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher, you won't get shit from them. You know it.
I've spent much time arguing with leftists on this site about the merits of the Chavista revolution. I'd like to hear from the Chavez boosters about this. I'll pull up your quotes about him. Slep? big_bird? DD? nowhereman? Camon? Where did you all go? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Sincinnatislink wrote: |
| I'm not defending *beep*. |
Again, easy to straighten out.
What is your position on Chavez?
(Still standing by for a straight answer. All I see here is your reacting in the usual defensive way when others point to Chavez the Righteous Petty Tyrant's [or Tehran the Fundamentalist Theocracy's] very real problems...)
Also, I am very well aware of Hitler's strength in the elections that brought him to power. The Weimar Republic had many problems, not to mention its extreme polarization towards the end. But did you know that one can say the exact same thing about Allende's election, too? As you may know, Sincinnati, Allende won the presidency with about the same plurality as Hitler (36.3%). And he also secured his victory through backroom deals with Congress (the so-called Constitutional Guarantees the Christian Democrats forced him to sign if he wanted their confirmation in the run-off election -- the guarantees, incidentally, Regis Debray later gloated that Allende had signed with "his fingers crossed behind his back...").
So, then. Do you also denounce Allende's presidency as "not popularly elected," Sincinnati? And do you also know that "in a democracy along the lines of the United States or Great Britain, [Allende] could have never risen to power?"
|
My problem is with government generally. You already think that Iran and such are awful places.
I'm working at showing you that Liberal Democracy is every bit as awful.
That's all.
Make a cogent argument from there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
