Liberated citizens should share oil wealth?

Originally posted by quackquack
It is just a complete distortion to consider corporate contributions tyranny and Chavez the only reasonable alternative.
I'm guessing most people would rather have corporate contributions in a viable democratic economy than a Chavez-like tyrany. I certainly wouldn't leave my country (the United States) to go to Venezuela, nor would I want to lose my f ...[text shortened]... new ideas and encourage shurking and would certainly not be a system that would appeal to me.

Blah, blah, blah. Was that post really worth the effort it took to type out?

Originally posted by rwingett
Yesterday's news? Because he hasn't done anything to arouse the wrath of the capitalist press lately? I'm afraid your attention span is lacking. How many other countries around the world are offering an alternative to the neo-liberal "free" market system?

As for the Libyans, what makes you think they'll even manage to survive Qaddafi's offensive, let al ...[text shortened]... h watching? I'm sure many people thought the same thing when Qaddafi toppled King Idris.

It's the paucity of his ideas, mainly; coupled with his 'light touch'. It just isn't working. And then there are his friends, like Gaddafi.

Benghazi has organised itself like 1930s Barcelona -- I'm surprised you aren't a fan. Apart from that, the free Libyans are holding up. They now have helicopters and a few jets; Ajdabiya is fighting back strongly, as is Misurata; they seized a tanker with 25 000 tons of fuel; there's an uprising in Sirte; and so on.

Gaddafi certainly did make something of himself, didn't he? If only those elite Egyptian kids hadn't laughed at him at college ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's the paucity of his ideas, mainly; coupled with his 'light touch'. It just isn't working. And then there are his friends, like Gaddafi.

Benghazi has organised itself like 1930s Barcelona -- I'm surprised you aren't a fan. Apart from that, the free Libyans are holding up. They now have helicopters and a few jets; Ajdabiya is fighting back strongl ...[text shortened]... self, didn't he? If only those elite Egyptian kids hadn't laughed at him at college ...

Yes, the Benghazi thing was inspiring. I'm just not sure it'll all turn out well in the end. Would be nice, of course.

The thing with Chavez is that his pool of potential friends is rather small. Laissez-faire capitalism has managed to crowd out most opposition. The 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' seems to what's going on there more than anything else. I still say Chavez is preferable to corporate tyranny any day.

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, the Benghazi thing was inspiring. I'm just not sure it'll all turn out well in the end. Would be nice, of course.

The thing with Chavez is that his pool of potential friends is rather small. Laissez-faire capitalism has managed to crowd out most opposition. The 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' seems to what's going on there more than anything else. I still say Chavez is preferable to corporate tyranny any day.

We'll see.

I prefer to have my hopes crushed by known enemies than false friends.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
We'll see.

I prefer to have my hopes crushed by known enemies than false friends.

Here's the thing, though. In a global economy you need a network of countries to be able to stand up to corporate domination. Let's say that Libya does become a democratic country; lacking any support, they're going to end up having to follow the dictates of the IMF and other trade organizations. Their sovereignty will be fatally undermined and they'll be forced into following corporate marching orders, as has happened in numerous other countries. Chavez's 'Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas' at least offers some alternative to that. So other countries, like Bolivia, which join with him can give some credible resistance to corporate domination.

Originally posted by rwingett
Here's the thing, though. In a global economy you need a network of countries to be able to stand up to corporate domination. Let's say that Libya does become a democratic country; lacking any support, they're going to end up having to follow the dictates of the IMF and other trade organizations. Their sovereignty will be fatally undermined and they'll be f e Bolivia, which join with him can give some credible resistance to corporate domination.

A network of countries? Tunisia and Egypt are right next door; Turkey is beckoning across the water.

Libya needs buyers its your oil. Libya has the most oil in Africa and has numerous unexploited deposits. It also has standing contracts with numerous countries already in place (I'm sure they'd forgive the Italians) and no shortage of additional potential customers, especially India and China. In addition, Libya has fantastic tourism potential!

As for Venezuela, why would Libya have another oil-producer as a strong trading partner -- especially when that country's leader has supported the family that has been killing them off as fast as possible? Have you processed that bit of information? You haven't really addressed Chavez' justification of the Gaddafi clan.

Do you secretly want Gaddafi to win?

Edit: The Bolivarian alliance may be a good thing for South America -- it's irrelevant to Africa and the Middle East.

Originally posted by rwingett
Here's the thing, though. In a global economy you need a network of countries to be able to stand up to corporate domination. Let's say that Libya does become a democratic country; lacking any support, they're going to end up having to follow the dictates of the IMF and other trade organizations. Their sovereignty will be fatally undermined and they'll be f ...[text shortened]... e Bolivia, which join with him can give some credible resistance to corporate domination.

Don't be silly - income differences in Venezuela are still huge and bigger than in the US.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Don't be silly - income differences in Venezuela are still huge and bigger than in the US.

Lies. The Gini coefficient of the US is 45, while Venezuela's is 41. For comparison purposes, Sweden and Norway are at 23 and 25 respectively. Venezuela is getting better, while the US is getting much, much worse. The US is currently hobnobbing with nations like Cameroon and Uganda when it comes to income inequality. It's an absolute disgrace.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

Originally posted by rwingett
Lies. The Gini coefficient of the US is 45, while Venezuela's is 41. For comparison purposes, Sweden and Norway are at 23 and 25 respectively. Venezuela is getting better, while the US is getting much, much worse. The US is currently hobnobbing with nations like Cameroon and Uganda when it comes to income inequality. It's an absolute disgrace.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

"Gini coefficients do include investment income; however, the Gini coefficient based on net income does not accurately reflect differences in wealth—a possible source of misinterpretation. For example, Sweden has a low Gini coefficient for income distribution but a significantly higher Gini coefficient for wealth (for instance 77% of the share value owned by households is held by just 5% of Swedish shareholding households).[13] In other words, the Gini income coefficient should not be interpreted as measuring effective egalitarianism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Disadvantages_of_Gini_coefficient_as_a_measure_of_inequality

It is an absolute disgrace, though -- whatever it is.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
"Gini coefficients do include investment income; however, the Gini coefficient based on net income does not accurately reflect differences in wealth—a possible source of misinterpretation. For example, Sweden has a low Gini coefficient for income distribution but a significantly higher Gini coefficient for wealth (for instance 77% of the share value ow ...[text shortened]... oefficient_as_a_measure_of_inequality

It is an absolute disgrace, though -- whatever it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Advantages_of_Gini_coefficient_as_a_measure_of_inequality

And there's my link to why the Gini coefficient is a good measure of inequality. I'll let the two links battle it out. But whatever the Gini coefficient is, or whatever it measures, Venezuela is still better than the US. Take whatever inequality or poverty metric you want. Whatever it is, Venezuela is getting better while the US is getting worse. Chavez is making a positive difference to the people of Venezuela, while the US is barreling headlong into the nightmare of the laissez-faire jungle.

Originally posted by rwingett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Advantages_of_Gini_coefficient_as_a_measure_of_inequality

And there's my link to why the Gini coefficient is a good measure of inequality. I'll let the two links battle it out. But whatever the Gini coefficient is, or whatever it measures, Venezuela is still better than the US. Take whatever inequality or pov ...[text shortened]... Venezuela, while the US is barreling headlong into the nightmare of the laissez-faire jungle.

Your wanting it to be so isn't much of an argument.

Why are you using the USA as a benchmark for Venezuela? They're completely different countries. Would you like a Chavez for the USA? Who would you choose?

Originally posted by rwingett
Blah, blah, blah. Was that post really worth the effort it took to type out?

Your response shows you are not worth talking to. But I respect your right to be both obnoxious and advocate things that would make the world a worse place. I am also thankful that you will have no influence.

Originally posted by rwingett
What objection do you have to the wealth generated from a nation's national resources being broadly distributed? The wealthy didn't create those resources. Why should they expect to profit disproportionally from them?

My post was more of a parody of the sentiments expressed by whodey than a true representation of my own personal views in regards to the suggestion present in the OP.

Originally posted by rwingett
The only current alternative to corporate tyranny is Chavez. Take your pick. As the position of the world's financial elites are virtually unassailable, I'd take Chavez any day. At least he has to run for re-election.

There is no need to resort to such crude false dichotomies, the simple proposal of the OP has already moral and ultimately economical supremacy over any opposing stance. Chavez is a particularly poor administrator of the Venezuelan economy, as news reports about the state of industry in the country consistently reveal. Chavez's behavior follows the usual pattern of caudillismo established by a long history of precedents, so the idea that Chavez's model of governance is the only alternative to corporate tyranny really strikes me as laughable.

Originally posted by FMF
A recent letter to The Economist:

"SIR – Another aspect to add to your thoughts on the role of oil in propping up tyrants in the Middle East is that the wealth from oil has been spread very thinly among the population (“Blood and oil”, February 26th). As the old political systems crumble, so should the old economic systems. These would-be democracies should d ...[text shortened]... "

Should mechanisms be set up to ensure this before the "free market" mechanism kicks in?

I'm surprised someone so misty-eyed is corresponding with The Economist. If the revolutionary states do not slip back in to oligarchy (a not unreasonable prospectus in itself), the likely sudden full emergence in to the neo-liberal globalised economy will create a de facto oligarchy in the multinationals (and a relatively small indigenous economic elite of nomenklatura types).

Alongside celebrating their political freedoms, western governments will pressure the states to fully open up their markets, and quickly, and any dream of a meaningful middle class - by our standards - will be gone as a result.

Think about the reaction - the way the picture will be painted - if the policies necessary to a fair sharing of natural resources were to be put in to place, as if these things were held in common. That's socialist talk, and that just won't do.

The Scandinavian model hasn't been able to sustain itself in the globalised neo-liberal economy; personally, I find the idea of building something like it from scratch unlikely to succeed.