Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Venezuela could get interesting...

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Venezuela could get interesting...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject:

crazy_arcade wrote:

This may be a bit off topic.

However, I can't understand why these things are so black and white.
The Chavez experiment has been very interesting. I don't see why progressive socialism and liberal democracy can't co-exist. Scandinavia has no problems balancing the two.

No, there is no balance between the two. Socialism, or any ~ism for that matter, is completely opposed to the idea of Liberty. Chavez is stealing opportunities from his people and his country. These stolen opportunities come at huge economic and even social costs to the people of Venezuela.

Scandinavia, is not Venezuela. Norway, for example, has huge oil wealth. It's people are free to do what they please, including starting and owning their own businesses. These other businesses will ensure that Norway will survive any hiccup in oil prices.

Quote:

South America has always had such a volatile and confused history. The area has so much wealth potential, it should be one of the richest areas of the world, not a crime ridden backwater. There's a lot of people that feel like Chaves and there's a large reason why he has a lot of support. In capitalism, one of the main ideas is that the wealth will, for lack of a better term, flow down (or maybe trickle) from the top echelons of society to the middle and lower echelons. This has never happened.

South America is indeed a troubled place as it has always been. There is a lot of room for potential but socialism is not the answer. Telling people how to spend their money or run their business will do nothing for human ingenuity or innovation. It will only move time backwards.
Capitalism is an economic idea, not a constitutional one, where the main idea is capital creation, or creation of wealth. Everyone has the potential to create wealth. However, people must be fully free to create capital. They must be fully free to innovate, they must be fully free to compete, they must be fully free to learn, they must be fully free to speak out... you get the idea. This is how capital is created.

Quote:

Maybe Chavez's experiment will work, maybe it won't. He's too extreme in his rhetoric for me but it certainly is interesting to watch.

If you're looking for a good leftist leader to follow closely, you should watch Lula da Silva. Although he is an economic leftist, he fully believes in the idea of a liberal society and free peoples. I'd be willing to bet that Brazil is more set to take off than Venezuela. In fact, Venezuela is in great danger of becoming a failed state; pity really. The Chavistas are following a popular leader with popular ideas, but his ideas will end up in failure, just like all of the other ~isms that came before him.

Last edited by Pluto on Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:56 pm; edited 2 times in total

blade

Joined: 30 Jun 2007

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Are the defining aspects of Socialism and slavery being able to hold a special election to get rid of the Executive power?

No, it isn't.

You seem to be confusing economic freedom with constitutional process.

I did not say that and you should know full well that I didn't unless of course you have some mental block that is.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject:

blade wrote:

Kuros wrote:

I did not say that and you should know full well that I didn't unless of course you have some mental block that is.

Right, what you see as a mental block is the clear recognition that Chavez is an over-reaching dictator wannabe. This recognition is apparently shared by 51% of the Venezuelan electorate.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject:

Pluto wrote:

Scandinavia, is not Venezuela. Finland, for example, has huge oil wealth. It is per haps the only liberal country in the OPEC cartel. It's people are free to do what they please, including starting and owning their own businesses. These other businesses will ensure that Finland will survive any hiccup in oil prices.

I think this would be news to Finland.

First, there is no liberal (or scandinavian) country in OPEC.

Membership list

Secondly, Finland doesn't have any oil. Well if it does, it is quite minimal. I think you're thinking of Norway and its national oil company Statoil

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject:

blade wrote:

Pluto wrote:

High oil prices have done more for Venezuela than anything Chavez has done.

Chavez could have done what his predecessors did and to give most of the wealth to his cronies.

You don't think that's happening now? Or are you just making the claim Chavez has altered corruption?

Meaning, instead of oil revenue going directly into some people's pockets, Chavez now does it indirectly by putting his cronies into oil company management and gov't positions, regardless of their qualifications.

I'd say the only difference between Chavez and past regimes is a bit more money is reaching the bottom. Keyword: bit, and that's due in large part to high oil prices.

Let's say, for arguments sake, Chavez was enriching his cronies less than his predecessors and corruption was minimal. The poor are benfiting from more welfare programs and the like. Sounds great right?

Well the problem is it makes them more dependent on the state and when oil prices do fall or stagnate (and they will, just look at history), they'll be screwed when the gov't finances can no longer provide those services. Then they'll take a big plunge and be worse off than they are now. Great.

And of course that is assuming Chavez is noble and corruption is minimal. I sincerely doubt that is the case.

Last edited by bucheon bum on Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

blade

Joined: 30 Jun 2007

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject:

Pluto wrote:

Chavez could also stop trying to buy Russian migs, strengthing his military and stop buying/bribing influence from his neighbors. Chavez has helped out a lot of his friends in the military.

Well sorry to be the one to have to inform you but this what countries do when they don't want surrounded enemies. But if you really want Chavez to do these things than I suggest you lobby the US to remove it's military bases from around south America and it too stops bribing/buying it's friends in the region because until they do so and every other country stops doing this then nobody has the right to single out Venezuela from trying to defend itself.

Quote:

You mean world demand don't you?

No, I mean US demand. US demand provides for more than 60% of Venezuelan oil supplies. This essentially makes the US market a monopsony as far as Venezuela is concerned.

Well I'm sure Venezuela can always sell it's oil else where i.e. rumor has it that China is very interested in purchasing more Venezuelan oil.

Quote:

You left out the word 'IF' and it's a pretty big if seeing as the US or most other countries don't look like they'll be giving up the use of oil anytime soon.

No, I mean when. This idea is based off of elasticity of demand. In the short run, not much will change since the US market depends on oil. However, in the long run, as newer
technologies are developed, the demand for oil will go down. When demand falls, so will the value of oil. As value for oil decreases, Chavez and his lavish social welfare programs will be in a lot of trouble. Oil demand is highly inelastic in the short-run, but it gains elasticity in the long-run.

Get real. Oil will not be replaced anytime soon as the energy of choice because even if a new technology is developed tomorrow it will many years before the technology can used to replace all the current machinery that burns oil at this time. Think about how many millions of cars there are in the US alone, all of which will require at the very least major modification to run on an alternative fuel and that assuming that they can be modified.

Quote:

Yet people in Venezuela have the option of kicking out Chavez mid way through his term of office if they wish. Can the same be said about the US? No.

No, my point is that while there is democracy, there is no Liberty. You are confusing the two. The UAE has an autocratic government, but its people are free. Venezuela is a democracy, but its people are not free; they are dependent on Chavez.

[/quote]
Dude no mater where you live you will be dependent on somebody else, be it Venezuela, the US, Europe etc.

Quote:

Precisely, nationalizing the oil industry in Venezuela has come at a huge opportunity cost(analogous to economic cost). There would have been greater competition, greater innovation, more jobs and more wealth that everyday Venezuelans could enjoy. Moreover, there would have been greater diversification so when the oil bubble pops, the economy would have something to fall back on. Of course, this is a liberal society, I'm describing.

Your not making any since now. You think ordinary Venezuelans would be better off if there country were to sell off all it's oil wealth and risk it allowing this wealth to fall into foreign hands and this would result in more jobs being created in the oil industry and that there would greater competition and efficiency. Now allow me to pock a few large holes in your theory. What happens when the oil as you believe begins be worth less than it is now? Surely all of these extra workers who you say will now be employed will now find them selves up the proverbial creek i.e. have no jobs, nor education as in your universe Chavez wouldn't have used oil wealth to provide education most of Venezuela's people as he is doing now. Also if Chavez were to do what you suggest wouldn't it likely be foreign oil companies that benefit mainly Venezuelan oil wealth at the expense of ordinary Venezuelans? I think what you are suggesting is that Venezuela should follow the Nigerian model and thus in a few years most Venezuelans will be dirt poor, knee high in industrial pollution and subject to Venezuelan death squads will be employed by the oil industry to keep pesky union members from complaining. Hey your hero in Columbia can help in this regard I suppose. [/quote]

Quote:

Question: What country is more prepared for a drop in the price of oil: Venezuela or the UAE?

Nether, both countries are either directly or indirectly dependent on the price of oil as is the US economy for that matter.

blade

Joined: 30 Jun 2007

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Right, what you see as a mental block is the clear recognition that Chavez is an over-reaching dictator wannabe. This recognition is apparently shared by 51% of the Venezuelan electorate.

Now your just reaching.

blade

Joined: 30 Jun 2007

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

You don't think that's happening now? Or are you just making the claim Chavez has altered corruption?

I'm sure corruption still goes on but I don't think it's anywhere near scale of what went before.

Quote:

Meaning, instead of oil revenue going directly into some people's pockets, Chavez now does it indirectly by putting his cronies into oil company management and gov't positions, regardless of their qualifications.

Chavez had little choice but to appoint some of his supporters to key positions in the oil industry because a little while back the people did run the oil industry tried to bring Venezuela to its knees and the level poverty rose markedly as a result. Thankfully the poverty situation in Venezuela is no longer as dire as it once was. And now many millions of otherwise destitute Venezuelans have learned to read and write and now are in position to contribute to the Venezuelan economy.

Quote:

I'd say the only difference between Chavez and past regimes is a bit more money is reaching the bottom. Keyword: bit, and that's due in large part to high oil prices.

Quite a bit I would think, Poverty has been reduced to about 30% down from a high of 70%. Many people who didn't have any access to medical care now do so. Talk about liberty all you like but if your too poor to even afford a doctor then any of your so called liberty is worth a dam.

Quote:

Let's say, for arguments sake, Chavez was enriching his cronies less than his predecessors and corruption was minimal. The poor are benfiting from more welfare programs and the like. Sounds great right?

Well the problem is it makes them more dependent on the state and when oil prices do fall or stagnate (and they will, just look at history), they'll be screwed when the gov't finances can no longer provide those services. Then they'll take a big plunge and be worse off than they are now. Great.

I think you should reread that piece about what was going on in Venezuela I posted earlier as you don 't seem have learned much much from it.

Quote:

And of course that is assuming Chavez is noble and corruption is minimal. I sincerely doubt that is the case.

If Chavez only cared about making himself wealthy then hasn't just gone the easy route of taking bribes for oil contracts from foreign oil companies and I'm sure he'd have enough money to buy his country in no time and all the friends in Washington a tin pot dictator could ever wish for.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject:

blade wrote:

Pluto wrote:

[1] Your not making any since now. You think ordinary Venezuelans would be better off if there country were to sell off all it's oil wealth and risk it allowing this wealth to fall into foreign hands and this would result in more jobs being created in the oil industry and that there would greater competition and efficiency. Now allow me to pock a few large holes in your theory. [2] What happens when the oil as you believe begins be worth less than it is now? Surely all of these extra workers who you say will now be employed will now find them selves up the proverbial creek i.e. have no jobs, nor education as in your universe Chavez wouldn't have used oil wealth to provide education most of Venezuela's people as he is doing now. [3] Also if Chavez were to do what you suggest wouldn't it likely be foreign oil companies that benefit mainly Venezuelan oil wealth at the expense of ordinary Venezuelans? [4] I think what you are suggesting is that Venezuela should follow the Nigerian model and thus in a few years most Venezuelans will be dirt poor, knee high in industrial pollution and subject to Venezuelan death squads will be employed by the oil industry to keep pesky union members from complaining. [5] Hey your hero in Columbia can help in this regard I suppose.

[1] Wow false dilemma. What's happening now is that a lot of Venezuelan oil wealth is going to governmental interests. I.e., its corrupt. You seem to believe that just because Chavez says the oil money is going to the people that it is. Here's a surprise, big government can be as much as a self-serving special interest as any corporation: often worse, because legislatures have a freer hand in taxing and otherwise regulating corporations, but its very hard for legislatures to take away jobs from others in government.

[2] Okay, have you heard of what is happening in the grocery stores in Venezuela? The prices of eggs, milk, and basic foodstuffs are screaming in price because of socialist mismanagement. Welcome to the foolishness of the price control, which seeks to keep prices down but only keeps food off the shelf. Because the government cannot control prices. We've learned this before in the last century!

[3] Oh, no! Foreign profits! Good god, and what would happen next? Foreign Direct Investment? Tax revenues? Economic growth?

[4] No, you are advocating the Iranian model. Namely, oil wealth is nationalized and sold off to its people for political support. But in the meantime, investment languishes, and the very well-spring for the public teat is being siphoned off for military spending and corruption. You think that just because the government has the money that it goes to the people. Given the history of the 20th Century, I find your assumptions incredible.

[5] Still smarting from your boy Chavez's defeat?

cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject:

Believe it or not, I for one would like to see Chavez make it work in Venezuela. No, I do not like the power grab, but, the people voted it down, I think that is a good sign that democracy works in Venezuela. Maybe this will humble Mr. Chavez and he will develop meaningful reforms and maintain a presence in the global market. Hopefully he will learn to adjust his economy to diversify into industries and other markets. I have talked with college educated Venezuelans who have told me in Venezuela, you go to school get educated get a college degree go to work and get laid off when you are 35 with no chance for further employment, these were Engineers, very good Engineers. I think the idea of the 6 hour work day was misguided, would increase employment in the short term but would have negative impact on productivity. There are no simple answers for Venezuela. I do pray that Chavez will find ways to improve the life of Venezuelans and to create growth and opportunity for all, without these crazy power grabs.

blade

Joined: 30 Jun 2007

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Well you might be right but even if you are then the chances of those on the bottom benefiting from this oil wealth is still greater because in the old days much of Venezuelan wealth was exported oversees and left in foreign bank accounts were nobody but the actual recipients of wealth could be benefit from it. Now even many of his supporters are corrupt at least chances are that they will still invest their ill wealth locally and people further down the pole get a chance of benefiting.

Quote:

[5] Still smarting from your boy Chavez's defeat?

Not at all, I now can prove that Chavez is not the dictator he was made out to be the former elite and those in Washington. In fact I bet the opposition regrets winning the vote more than do government supporters.

Pluto

Joined: 19 Dec 2006

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:11 pm Post subject:

blade wrote:

Pluto wrote:

Chavez could also stop trying to buy Russian migs, strengthing his military and stop buying/bribing influence from his neighbors. Chavez has helped out a lot of his friends in the military.

What enemies? The US was never an issue until Chavez made the US an issue. The only base in S. America I know of is a tiny Air Force base in Ecuador. This base is getting shut down soon from what I understand.

Quote:

Well I'm sure Venezuela can always sell it's oil else where i.e. rumor has it that China is very interested in purchasing more Venezuelan oil.

Venezuela can sell its oil to whomever it wants to. Problem with China is that they haven't got the refining capacity to process Venezuela's oil into usable petroleum products.

Quote:

Technologies are being developed as we speak to lessen our dependence on oil. It's only a matter of time before these products come to market. In economics, I understand the 'long-run' is a rather ambiguous term, but the point is that this oil bonanza won't last forever. It's also said that about 30% of the price of oil is due to risk. Alleviate the supply and refining worries and the price of oil will sink fast.

Quote:

Dude no mater where you live you will be dependent on somebody else, be it Venezuela, the US, Europe etc.

I am not dependent on anyone, especially some over reaching bloated government bureaucracy . If teaching doesn't work out, oh well, I'll move on to something else. Maybe, I'll start my own business.

Quote:

Alright, I'm going to stop you right there. What is economic efficiency? What is economic inefficiency? What is Deadweight loss? How is Deadweight loss created?

Quote:

Surely all of these extra workers who you say will now be employed will now find them selves up the proverbial creek i.e. have no jobs, nor education as in your universe Chavez wouldn't have used oil wealth to provide education most of Venezuela's people as he is doing now. Also if Chavez were to do what you suggest wouldn't it likely be foreign oil companies that benefit mainly Venezuelan oil wealth at the expense of ordinary Venezuelans?

No, foreign direct investment will only create more opportunities for ordinary Venezuelans. Hard to say what will happen to the workers but without a diversified economy, they will have little opportunity to do little else. Chavez's social programs and the people dependent on those programs will be screwed though.

Quote:

I think what you are suggesting is that Venezuela should follow the Nigerian model and thus in a few years most Venezuelans will be dirt poor, knee high in industrial pollution and subject to Venezuelan death squads will be employed by the oil industry to keep pesky union members from complaining.

I am suggesting the model of liberty. My philosophy comes straight from The Department of Economics at The University of Chicago, "Free Markets for Free People." People are capable of extraordinary things, but it can only happen under the conditions set forth from a liberal society. I am not suggesting the Iranian model nor the Nigerian model; only the model of Liberty.

Quote:

Hey your hero in Columbia can help in this regard I suppose.

At least Uribe and Lula da Silva have a clue, Chavez doesn't.

thepeel

Joined: 08 Aug 2004

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject:

The data below from the IMF and all figures are in annual percent change. Venezuela m1 83.4 m2 69.4 m3 69.3 GDP 8.0 inf 18.0 M3 (money supply) growth is way out of line with gdp growth. This is a very bad sign for the near future in that country. But again, you get what you vote for. I feel absolutely not sympathy for them. How could you look at the last 100 years of human history and think fucking socialism is the answer. Venezuela is going to have massive, hyper, horrible inflation in the very near future. Chavez will find his days numbered unless he violently suppresses the coming protests.

blade

Joined: 30 Jun 2007

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject:

thepeel wrote:

M3 (money supply) growth is way out of line with gdp growth. This is a very bad sign for the near future in that country.

Take a look at other western economies and then tell me that they are doing something different?

Quote:

But again, you get what you vote for. I feel absolutely not sympathy for them.

I'm sure they'll get on o.k with your support

Quote:

How could you look at the last 100 years of human history and think *beep* socialism is the answer.

Because you might have grown up in south America in the 80's and seen what a disaster uncontrolled capitalism was for the region.

Quote:

Venezuela is going to have massive, hyper, horrible inflation in the very near future. Chavez will find his days numbered unless he violently suppresses the coming protests.

Here's an idea instead of countries such as the US helping to fund the opposition on it's never ending quest to bring the Venezuelan economy to it's knees just because the Venezuelans run their country their own way perhaps the US could at least stop and let them work things out for themselves. Many south American countries made themselves bankrupt trying to follow what so called economic experts told them to do.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject:

blade wrote:

Quote:

How could you look at the last 100 years of human history and think *beep* socialism is the answer.

Because you might have grown up in south America in the 80's and seen what a disaster uncontrolled capitalism was for the region.

The 80s were a product of borrowing too much money from banks in the 70s. That bit Mexico in the ass in 1982 and other Latin American countries followed it. What did gov'ts use all that borrowed money on? socialist programs such as nationalized industry and bloated government. When the debt crisis hit, people were in trouble. Gov'ts had to cut back, and economies shrank or stagnated. That capitalism was an attempt to overcome all that.

Uncontrolled capitalism is a misnomer. They did start to liberalize their economies in the 80s, and only in recent years you are seeing the fruits of it. Just look at Brazil and Chile as examples.

It generally takes over 10 years for liberalization to have a positive effect throughout society. Besides the aforementioned countries, there is Eastern Euorpe (esp. the baltic states), and New Zealand is a perfect example.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe