29 Feb 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhat a penetrating analysis. You must be taking lessons from whodey.
Mostly built on idiocy. Of course, naïve treehuggers like no1 are easily fooled by someone claiming to fight the evil capitalists.
I wasn't able to read the WSJ article online as it had limited access and forgot to look it up at the library as I intended. I'm still curious as to the explanation why IF the present economic situation was the inevitable result of Chavez's policies, why it took until years after his death to occur. Obviously Venezuela is heavily dependent on oil earnings but that long predates Chavez and there's little doubt that during his Presidency the country's poor and working class benefited enormously while before it had been one of the most unequal countries in Latin America. So kneejerk after the fact criticism of Chavez doesn't impress me; I'd like some specific reasons why some posters think that what is happening today was caused by his policies.
So far none has been offered.
EDIT: Perhaps this article that originally appeared in Fortune could be a starting point: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/23/fixing-the-venezuelan-economy/
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by no1marauderLet me Google that for you. Here's the first hit, top of the page.
What a penetrating analysis. You must be taking lessons from whodey.
I wasn't able to read the WSJ article online as it had limited access and forgot to look it up at the library as I intended. I'm still curious as to the explanation why IF the present economic situation was the inevitable result of Chavez's policies, why it took until years after hi ...[text shortened]... that what is happening today was caused by his policies.
So far none has been offered.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/ways-chavez-destroyed-venezuelan-economy/story?id=18239956
I believe your point is addressed here:
According to the UN's Economic Commission for Latin America, the percentage of the population living under the poverty line in Venezuela fell from 49.4% in 1999 to 27.8% in 2010. That is a pretty good record but there were similar trends across Latin America. In the region as a whole poverty dropped from 43.8% in 1999 to 31.8% in 2010. A few countries, like Peru, Brazil and Panama, faired even better than Venezuela. Poverty rates in Peru dropped sharply from 54.7% in 2000 to 31.3% in 2010—all three have solidly capitalistic economies.
Inequality has declined in Venezuela but it has across other parts of Latin America as well particularly in Brazil, Chile and Colombia.
The article then discusses five ways Chavez' policies destroyed the Venezuelan economy:
1.Venezuela has gone from being dependent on oil to being extremely dependent on oil.
2. The Chavez government has crippled private businesses and national industry through expropriations and nationalizations.
3. The Venezuelan currency is a mess.
4. Prices in Venezuela have gone up by 23 percent a year for more than ten years.
5. Under Chavez Venezuela has become one of the most violent countries on the planet.
29 Feb 16
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyBefore I get to the article, Venezuela was and remains a "solidly capitalistic economy" and the leadership in Peru and Brazil in the first decade of the 21st Century had a similar ideology to Chavez.
Let me Google that for you. Here's the first hit, top of the page.
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/ways-chavez-destroyed-venezuelan-economy/story?id=18239956
I believe your point is addressed here:
[i]According to the UN's Economic Commission for Latin America, the percentage of the population living under the poverty line in Venezuela fe ...[text shortened]... years.
5. Under Chavez Venezuela has become one of the most violent countries on the planet.
But thanks for the link; I'll look it over.
OK, it says that from the time Chavez was in power the Venezuelan economy performed about as well as the average one in Latin America in two economic measures; being a little below average GDP growth while being a bit above average in reducing poverty. That hardly counts as "destroying" an economy as the hysterical headline claims.
29 Feb 16
Here's an article giving an overview of Venezuela's economic and social performance under Chavez: http://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuela-economic-and-social-performance-under-hugo-chavez/5326013
Short version: it did pretty well esp. after the government got control of the oil industry after the "oil strike" and attempted coup in 2003.
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by no1marauderI think you're glossing over a few details there no1. LOL. Nationalizing industries, driving business out of the country, driving away foreign investment, 23 percent per year inflation for ten years? C'mon man.
Before I get to the article, Venezuela was and remains a "solidly capitalistic economy" and the leadership in Peru and Brazil in the first decade of the 21st Century had a similar ideology to Chavez.
But thanks for the link; I'll look it over.
OK, it says that from the time Chavez was in power the Venezuelan economy performed about as well as the a ...[text shortened]... ducing poverty. That hardly counts as "destroying" an economy as the hysterical headline claims.
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by SleepyguyVenezuela has a long history of inflation; the rate in the 1980s and 1990s was far higher than what it was under Chavez. See Chart 3 in the link I gave.
I think you're glossing over a few details there no1. LOL. Nationalizing industries, driving business out of the country, driving away foreign investment, 23 percent per year inflation for ten years? C'mon man.
The corporate media likes to pretend that the only way that developing countries can grow their economies is by having foreigners come in and take over it. They also like to claim that any nationalized industries are automatically less efficient than the private sector. Neither claim is empirically correct in virtually all cases.
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by no1marauderDude, Chavez was a fascist and you loved him. End of story.
Venezuela has a long history of inflation; the rate in the 1980s and 1990s was far higher than what it was under Chavez. See Chart 3 in the link I gave.
The corporate media likes to pretend that the only way that developing countries can grow their economies is by having foreigners come in and take over it. They also like to claim that any nationalize ...[text shortened]... efficient than the private sector. Neither claim is empirically correct in virtually all cases.
29 Feb 16
Originally posted by no1marauderNorway seems to have done a pretty good job eliminating poverty without getting carried away by their oil revenues (Norway produces about 5 times more oil per capita than Venezuela). And you can even buy toilet paper there!
What a penetrating analysis. You must be taking lessons from whodey.
I wasn't able to read the WSJ article online as it had limited access and forgot to look it up at the library as I intended. I'm still curious as to the explanation why IF the present economic situation was the inevitable result of Chavez's policies, why it took until years after hi ...[text shortened]... could be a starting point: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/23/fixing-the-venezuelan-economy/
01 Mar 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraCompare Norway in 1998 to Venezuela in 1998.
Norway seems to have done a pretty good job eliminating poverty without getting carried away by their oil revenues (Norway produces about 5 times more oil per capita than Venezuela). And you can even buy toilet paper there!
I realize it is difficult for you to put away your EuroSnark personality and actually make some posts of substance, but perhaps you could explain what specifically Chavez did before he died three years ago that inevitably led to the crisis in Venezuela now (other than not transforming his country into a Scandinavia paradise in three easy lessons).
Thanks in advance.
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by no1marauderHow about the simple definition of a government/economic system where the means of production are privately owned under strict government regulation.
You don't even know what a "fascist" was if you think Chavez was one.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-fascism/
Seems that in the end the similarities outweigh the differences. Being fascist allows one to escape the communist stink, but still keep most of the Statism. It is an attempt by the left to redefine itself.
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by normbenign🙄🙄
How about the simple definition of a government/economic system where the means of production are privately owned under strict government regulation.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communism-and-fascism/
Seems that in the end the similarities outweigh the differences. Being fascist allows one to escape the communist stink, but still keep most of the Statism. It is an attempt by the left to redefine itself.
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by normbenignApparently you also can't tell the difference between rolling eyes and spinning heads.
Yeh, the truth about leftism makes their heads spin.
Fascism has always been a right wing movement allied with what are usually the most conservative elements of society. Outside of always repressing labor unions and organizations their economic policies have somewhat varied but in general large scale capitalists were left free to make profits and dominate the economy. Pinochet's Chile was advised on economic policy by Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago boys, strong advocates of laissez faire.
Chavez was obviously a leftist and thus could not be a fascist. Moreover, hls program vastly increased the number of worker cooperatives and was generally supportive of labor. No fascist State ever acted in such a manner.
The designation of the Right was given originally to monarchist parties. The Right is always interested in protecting the present elites against the People. Laissez Faire ideology presently serves that purpose best so it has been enthusiastically adopted by the Right but that has not always been true in all nations.
01 Mar 16
Originally posted by no1marauderCompare, say, Bolivia or Brazil in 1998 to Venezuela in 1998.
Compare Norway in 1998 to Venezuela in 1998.
I realize it is difficult for you to put away your EuroSnark personality and actually make some posts of substance, but perhaps you could explain what specifically Chavez did before he died three years ago that inevitably led to the crisis in Venezuela now (other than not transforming his country into a Scandinavia paradise in three easy lessons).
Thanks in advance.
Now compare them in 2016.
Of course Chavez was wrong to not copy the Nordic socio-economic model. Do you disagree?