Indoctrination in venezuela, latin-america's brand of stalinism

Originally posted by sh76
When all examples are more than 20 years old, you know the argument is not all that strong.

Honduras.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Venezuela is more right wing than the US in terms of income equality.

Wrong, Venezuela's entire political ideology is based on moving very unequal incomes to greater equality in something Chavez calls 21st Century socialism, which is not a right wing policy stance towards income at all. In fact, it is proof of socialism's failure to make people's lives any better and their incomes and quality of life any higher. Even the poor suffer under food shortages. So if Venezuela seeks to move an unequal country to greater equality and its failures create shortages of basic foodstuff even when oil prices were high, how can anyone defend such radical socialism? Venezuela just stole billions of dollars worth of oil from foreign investors, how long will it take until their stolen oil producing wealth produces less oil than it brings in? Usualy inefficient state run enterprises last decades upon decades, but with Chavez we will see if they crack within one generation (30 years) with 10 years already done, I hear a lot of people predict that it will be now with oil prices so reduced, but I think their policies are not quite as extreme as they'd like to say as far as their savings and debt reduction go, so I think they can hold out a good part of this generation... but the kids that grow under state dependency won't be adding much value to society... here comes a generation of socialist inspired lazyness.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Venezuela is more right wing than the US in terms of income equality.

This crap again?? I thought you were done with this!

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Wrong, Venezuela's entire political ideology is based on moving very unequal incomes to greater equality in something Chavez calls 21st Century socialism, which is not a right wing policy stance towards income at all. In fact, it is proof of socialism's failure to make people's lives any better and their incomes and quality of life any higher. Even the ...[text shortened]... be adding much value to society... here comes a generation of socialist inspired lazyness.

It seems you too have become a victim of Chávez propaganda. If you look at the actual facts, you will find that Venezuela has a small government (public expenditures: 30% of GDP - less than the US at 36% ) and high inequality.

Originally posted by scherzo
This crap again?? I thought you were done with this!

No, I will keep confronting you with these pesky facts, although I know you dislike them.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It seems you too have become a victim of Chávez propaganda. If you look at the actual facts, you will find that Venezuela has a small government (public expenditures: 30% of GDP - less than the US at 36% ) and high inequality.

You said Venezuela is more right wing, indicating a political economy policy stance, so which policy are you talking about?

None? Just purposefully distorting this time? You were doing better sticking to real debating rather than putting on a show like some debaters do around here.

The fact is that Chavez did steal a bunch of oil money, giving him a huge revenue source, and he has increased spending and also stolen more companies like a local plan owned by a Mexican company known as Cemex. He has nationalized the companies belonging to even oil contractors this year. He is desperate for funds because his public expeditures are rapidly going in one direction while his oil wealth was going in the other (although prices are now rising again).

You must admit, his stole oil wealth and that makes Venezuela's numbers look good in 2008, but that his expenditures have rapidly increased and he has spend a lot to keep poor people in free goodies even if not in high incomes. His policy is to make everyone equal, but his results are the same as they are for the typical socilist country, which is to erode people's wealth to become equally poor.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You said Venezuela is more right wing, indicating a political economy policy stance, so which policy are you talking about?

None? Just purposefully distorting this time? You were doing better sticking to real debating rather than putting on a show like some debaters do around here.

The fact is that Chavez did steal a bunch of oil money, giving hi ...[text shortened]... re for the typical socilist country, which is to erode people's wealth to become equally poor.

I specifically elaborated what I meant by "more right wing" in the exact same post - a greater degree of income inequality.

Chávez nationalized some companies whose board of directors were his political opponents. That does not make him "socialist" - at the core his policies are right wing and would be applauded by most right wing Republicans if they were to look beyond Chávez red tie. The "free goodies" to the poor are on par with those handed out by the US social security system.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I specifically elaborated what I meant by "more right wing" in the exact same post - a greater degree of income inequality.

Chávez nationalized some companies whose board of directors were his political opponents. That does not make him "socialist" - at the core his policies are right wing and would be applauded by most right wing Republicans if they ...[text shortened]... ee goodies" to the poor are on par with those handed out by the US social security system.

But that is just name calling, because "right wing" policies are not to create the inquality of Venezuela. Rather, the inequalitiy of venezuela is a reflection of the nation's history and the failures of Chavez after 10 years in power.

How is nationalizing private enterprises right-wing rather than left wing? Which crazy core are you referring too? The one you are projecting out onto a different political wing than yours? Unfortunately for your argument, state-run enterprises remain "left-wing" and something that is an actual policy stance of the left-wing Hugo Chavez socialist regime.

As for social security, we can agree there that they are free goodies too, and a socialist program just as it was called when it was started in the 1930's. Of course, Chavez seeks to expand such government programs as part of his stated policies, wherease the US under Bush did not... although under Obama there seems to be a big push to tilt more towards state-run economic sectors again, as in health care. Other than that, the US does not seek socialism. Obama continually defends the private sector in words and policy aims (other than in health care). Hugo Chavez continually attacks capitalism in words and in policy actions.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
But that is just name calling, because "right wing" policies are not to create the inquality of Venezuela. Rather, the inequalitiy of venezuela is a reflection of the nation's history and the failures of Chavez after 10 years in power.

How is nationalizing private enterprises right-wing rather than left wing? Which crazy core are you referring too? ...[text shortened]... health care). Hugo Chavez continually attacks capitalism in words and in policy actions.

Chávez could very easily establish a socialist state if he wanted to. Yet he keeps government small and taxes low, how do you explain this?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Chávez could very easily establish a socialist state if he wanted to. Yet he keeps government small and taxes low, how do you explain this?

First, cite which numbers you are quoting so that we can all analyze and interpret them, not just you.

Second, remember the record high oil prices last year made their stolen private oil wealth improve their numbers.

Here is how they're fairing in venezuela this year with lower oil prices:

http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/08/14/en_eco_art_venezuelas-domestic_14A2619443.shtml


I disagree with you, Chavez cannot afford to establish a socialist state in the long run, and to draw it out, he may be incrementally stealing wealth from additional sector of the economy.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Chávez could very easily establish a socialist state if he wanted to. Yet he keeps government small and taxes low, how do you explain this?

By the way, how do YOU explain and interpret Chavez's incremental move towards socialism. I think politics is a part of it, as the people may reject too much radical change too soon. We will see what he does thes next couple of years and how oil prices influence his actions.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
By the way, how do YOU explain and interpret Chavez's incremental move towards socialism. I think politics is a part of it, as the people may reject too much radical change too soon. We will see what he does thes next couple of years and how oil prices influence his actions.

Well, I think Chávez is a populist and is saying things which will appease the masses.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
First, cite which numbers you are quoting so that we can all analyze and interpret them, not just you.

Second, remember the record high oil prices last year made their stolen private oil wealth improve their numbers.

Here is how they're fairing in venezuela this year with lower oil prices:

http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/08/14/en_eco_art_ven ...[text shortened]... to draw it out, he may be incrementally stealing wealth from additional sector of the economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela

Here you can find the figure on government size, the Gini coefficient article will tell you about income equality.

Any country can establish a socialist state, you don't need a private sector to "fund" the public one.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela

Here you can find the figure on government size, the Gini coefficient article will tell you about income equality.

Any country can establish a socialist state, you don't need a private sector to "fund" the public one.

In other words, to get good numbers on Venezuela you had to go years back before many spending increases and the oil boom/bust of 2008/2009.

Now that you're calling him a populist, you are closer to being on the right track, but he is certainly a more socialist populist and a capitalist one. When did he advocate privatization and markets or institute any policies related to that instead of to expanding state-control of the economy...

Please list the "socialist states" that you believe are funded without a private sector and let us see which are in dire poverty and which are actually funded by a private sector (or oil wealth stolen from the private sector).

Originally posted by eljefejesus
In other words, to get good numbers on Venezuela you had to go years back before many spending increases and the oil boom/bust of 2008/2009.

Now that you're calling him a populist, you are closer to being on the right track, but he is certainly a more socialist populist and a capitalist one. When did he advocate privatization and markets or institu ...[text shortened]... which are actually funded by a private sector (or oil wealth stolen from the private sector).

So you think government expenditures are now a much larger percentage of GDP? Do you have more recent data?

Please list the "socialist states" that you believe are funded without a private sector

Public expenses are never "funded by" the private sector. If this were true, a fully collectivized economy could never exist, which means that for example a primitive tribe cannot produce anything (obviously they can).