roachboy

well ace, this puts me in a nice little high school debate team conumdrum, doesn't it?
if i post again, i am taking your bait: if i dont, you get to say why it is that the thread is adequately framed and that's that.


this time, i'll bite:

essentially the op does not require (or seemingly presuppose) any particular information about venezuela.
you cite a factoid concerning emigration levels and follow it with a general statement about central planning.
this way, even if one were not interested in actual information concerning what is happening on the ground in consensus reality (the empirical world), one could still draw conclusions from the skeletal op and fit them into the superficial nature of the thread.

essentially, what you are asking about is how the readers of the op react to the notion of central planning, about which you provide no information either in general or in particular concerning how such activities are undertaken under chavez and of their effects.

you juxtapose the factoids about emgration levels as if they constituted some kind of evidence that buttresses your apparent contention about central planning.

so as it stands, ace, there is no there there in this thread.
claim access to all the evidence you want--i dont doubt that you have evidence of some kind for something of what you post--but let's not pretend that this thread as it stands has anything like adequate information that would enable a reader who did not already know something about venezuela/chavez to arrive at anything like an informed judgment.

you might as well have simply posted this question:

central planning: good thing/bad thing? explain.

because that's all you're really asking here.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite