Originally posted by KazetNagorraAre you seriously asserting that Scandinavian countries in 1946 were worse off than Venezuela in 1998? Did any of those countries have half their population in poverty and more than a 1/5 in "extreme poverty"?
Right, so the aftermath of WW2 was not as bad as not having control over some oil revenue. Got it.
Originally posted by no1marauderHow much of their population was in poverty? Probably quite a significant proportion, given the fact that most of the social reforms date to the 50s and 60s, and the state of the technology available was nowhere near what is available to Venezuela. Why is it you think Chávez kept the top rate at such a low rate? Either he does not really want to alleviate poverty and income inequality, or he is incompetent. Probably a combination of both.
Are you seriously asserting that Scandinavian countries in 1946 were worse off than Venezuela in 1998? Did any of those countries have half their population in poverty and more than a 1/5 in "extreme poverty"?
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraObama is a neo liberal and deeply in tune with the American militarist and imperial strategy. He is not necessarily to the Left of Mitt Romney, if Romney got himself an education and some psychotherapy. It's just that Romney and the American Right have fallen off the scale and entered the land of the fairies. Obama is not the candidate of the Left. He is just the candidate of the human race.
Because they are both Marxists, right?
10 Oct 12
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou really don't know anything about anywhere, do you?
How much of their population was in poverty? Probably quite a significant proportion, given the fact that most of the social reforms date to the 50s and 60s, and the state of the technology available was nowhere near what is available to Venezuela. Why is it you think Chávez kept the top rate at such a low rate? Either he does not really want to alleviate poverty and income inequality, or he is incompetent. Probably a combination of both.