Hugo Chavez - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 08-08-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Here is a relevant graph from wikipedia on Venezuela's economic state,

It seems to be better than where it was before he took power. Inflation is way down.

Economic policies have long tails. The decisions Chavez is making today won't be seen immediately. For example, oil is currently selling at all-time highs, and Venezuela is selling most of its oil to the US. The US has refineries that more or less specializes in processing Venezuelan oil. Thing are as good as they can possibly be today due to past investment and relationships made decades ago.

However, current Venezuelan oil wells are producing less oil each month. Investment is needed for improving production and to explore new sources of oil in the country.

The price of oil may go higher given instability in the ME, however, if the ME stabilizes it is highly likely the price of oil will go down. This will hurt their economy which is almost totally defendant on oil. And the sale of that oil to the US.

Investment is needed if Venezuela wants to establish new markets for its oil, in Asia. Currently they have no efficient means to get their oil to those markets. Now is the time those investments need to be made, given the price of oil. They have had a short-term outlook, certainly investing in social programs is important, but they desprately need to direct some of their money towards new oil sources, pipelines to the pacific, and refineries.

Chavez's impact won't fully be realized until we see how these things develop. Right now, I think he is on the wrong track, but it is not too late. There is still opportunity . I respect Chavez's tenacity and his desire to do right by the poor people in his country, this is an interesting test for a centralized state run and controlled economy. Time will tell, but in the past all centralized state run economies have failed.

roachboy · 08-08-2007, 09:46 AM

so wait, ace: do your posts mean that you side with the economic elite in venezuela and that you support their particular versions of class warfare because you know what they are, how they unfold and what they mean? or is this a simple exercise in a priori playing around, one that is not based on anything like information about venezeula, its class structure, its politics, its history? are you of the conservative school that thinks the only socio-historical information that matters is that which is coincident with neoliberal ideology?
it seems that you are because when you strip away the pseudo-data, you arguments come down to neoliberalism uber alles--no alternatives are acceptable. you dont need to understand what these alternatives might be because you have decided a priori that they do not work. on what basis? it certainly cannot be--CANNOT be--on the basis of anything approaching a close look at the damage wrought by neoliberalism in south america. it cannot be based on any understanding of the history of us-latin american relations. it cannot be based on any coherent information about venezuela, and it obviously does not require a coherent understanding of either hugo chavez or his politics or of how his political address aspects of class war in his country.

given that it seems you are engaging in the same a priori game as powerclown or dk, i wonder why you bother with the data that you gather.

but even more, i wonder if at some point in the past you were rcp. your use of the rcp paper was funny. do you have a bit of mao in your past?

plot summary: it seems to me that what guyy said above is accurate re. powerclown and dk...and it seems to me that you, ace, present a more data-centered version of the same thing.

aceventura3 · 08-08-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so wait, ace: do your posts mean that you side with the economic elite in venezuela and that you support their particular versions of class warfare because you know what they are, how they unfold and what they mean?

I don't have a dog in this fight, I just find it interesting. The people in Venezuela should decide how they are governed and how income is distributed. If I lived in the country I would side with those who shared what I would consider to be in my best interest. I am not altruistic, or blinded by theoretical principles, especially when it involves where my next meal is going to come from. In theory, however, I think the best economic systems are those where people have an incentive to invest in the future, or capitalism. In theory I side with what you call the "economic elite", although in capitalist systems the poor can easily become rich, this is not true in most other economic systems.

Quote:

or is this a simple exercise in a priori playing around, one that is not based on anything like information about venezeula, its class structure, its politics, its history? or are you of the conservative school that thinks the only socio-historical information that matters is that which is coincident with neoliberal ideology?

I don't know. I don't understand the question.

Quote:

it seems to me that what guyy said above is accurate re. powerclown and dk...and it seems to me that you, ace, present a more data-centered version of the same thing.

I think the difference is in the time horizon and point of view used. My thoughts are based on what will happen over the next few decades based on decisions being made today and I view Venezuela as an entity interacting with the world where decisions made will meet with reactions from other world entities - nations and international corporations

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 10:10 AM

Wait, is this the same logic by which we attribute the economic growth in the Clinton Administration to the Bush and Reagan Administrations?

aceventura3 · 08-08-2007, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Wait, is this the same logic by which we attribute the economic growth in the Clinton Administration to the Bush and Reagan Administrations?

Yes. Reagan laid the foundation for economic prosperity in the 90's. Clinton did not do anything material to upset the foundation laid by Reagan. Bush's tax cuts will allow our economy to grow at a moderate pace over the next 5 to 10 years. However, some of the fundamental problems facing our economic futures are being ignored in Washington. Social Security and Medicare will ruin the economy given the limited projected growth in our labor force in the decades to come (especially without a guest worker program and what many call amnesty).

We certainly have our problems and issues, as does Venezuela.

powerclown · 08-08-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

I'm having a hard time connecting this post to the situation in Venezuela. What is the communist regime we are talking about? Paris in 1870? Something else? And what is the connection between different levels of human ability and Chavez's position as elected leader of Venezuela? I'm not making the connection.

In Venezuela 2007, Chavez has made centralized government based authoritarianism fashionable once again - yet another in a long-running saga of power hungry Latin American military dictators posing as populist redeemers. Although this time, he's particularly fabulous and fashionable with the leftinistas, what with his anti-American, anti-capitalist ranting (leaving out the part where America is his biggest export market). He's not addressing the long-term implications of poverty, he's perpetuating them. He's not generating real solutions and opportunities for poor people in Venezuela, he's soothing them into tranquility and obedience. He's exploiting the poor, not helping them. He's overturned legislation in favor of perpetuating his presidency indefinitely. He controls the Legislature, the Supreme Court, 2 Armed Forces, the only relevant source of state revenue (oil), and the institution that monitors electoral rules.

Rather than mending the country's catastrophic healthcare system, he opens a few military hospitals for selected patients and brings in Cuban doctors to run ad hoc clinics. Rather than addressing the economy's lack of competitiveness, he offers subsidies and protection to economic agents in trouble. Rather than killing inflation, which is crucial to alleviating poverty, Chavez sets price controls and creates local grocery stores with subsidized prices. Rather than promoting stable property rights to boost investment and employment, he expands state employment.

This is nothing new in the historical narrative of real-world socialism/communism, and it always ends badly.

guyy · 08-08-2007, 03:59 PM

[QUOTE=powerclown]He's not addressing the long-term implications of poverty, he's perpetuating them. He's not generating real solutions and opportunities for poor people in Venezuela, he's soothing them into tranquility and obedience. He's exploiting the poor, not helping them. He's overturned legislation in favor of perpetuating his presidency indefinitely. He controls the Legislature, the Supreme Court, 2 Armed Forces, the only relevant source of state revenue (oil), and the institution that monitors electoral rules.

Rather than mending the country's catastrophic healthcare system, he opens a few military hospitals for selected patients and brings in Cuban doctors to run ad hoc clinics. Rather than addressing the economy's lack of competitiveness, he offers subsidies and protection to economic agents in trouble. Rather than killing inflation, which is crucial to alleviating poverty, Chavez sets price controls and creates local grocery stores with subsidized prices. Rather than promoting stable property rights to boost investment and employment, he expands state employment.[\QUOTE]

Oh dear, things do sound so dreadfully horrid! It's so very much like the muddle we have here at home, what with the failing health care system and visas for Cuban doctors, exploitation of the poor, authoritarian dunderheads running amok, etc...

One thing is missing, though: the Commie bits. Where's the Communism?

Quote:

This is nothing new in the historical narrative of real-world socialism/communism, and it always ends badly.

Well, yeah, given the definition of communism and socialism as Something Very Bad, it's only a Matter of Time before the predetermined end is reached.

host · 08-08-2007, 04:21 PM

[QUOTE=guyy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

He's not addressing the long-term implications of poverty, he's perpetuating them. He's not generating real solutions and opportunities for poor people in Venezuela, he's soothing them into tranquility and obedience. He's exploiting the poor, not helping them. He's overturned legislation in favor of perpetuating his presidency indefinitely. He controls the Legislature, the Supreme Court, 2 Armed Forces, the only relevant source of state revenue (oil), and the institution that monitors electoral rules.

Rather than mending the country's catastrophic healthcare system, he opens a few military hospitals for selected patients and brings in Cuban doctors to run ad hoc clinics. Rather than addressing the economy's lack of competitiveness, he offers subsidies and protection to economic agents in trouble. Rather than killing inflation, which is crucial to alleviating poverty, Chavez sets price controls and creates local grocery stores with subsidized prices. Rather than promoting stable property rights to boost investment and employment, he expands state employment.[\QUOTE]

Oh dear, things do sound so dreadfully horrid! It's so very much like the muddle we have here at home, what with the failing health care system and visas for Cuban doctors, exploitation of the poor, authoritarian dunderheads running amok, etc...

One thing is missing, though: the Commie bits. Where's the Communism?

Well, yeah, given the definition of communism and socialism as Something Very Bad, it's only a Matter of Time before the predetermined end is reached.

The state.gov site shows a statistic that, before Nov, 2003:

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/v/57234.htm

....According to private sources, the percentages of poor and extremely poor among Venezuelan population were 74.6% and 39.3%, respectively, in 2003.....

....and powerclown and ace post that "the bad people", are the ones who have brought about this transformation:

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35766.htm

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
February 2007

......There is considerable income inequality. The Gini coefficient was 0.45 during 2006.
According to government statistics, the percentages of poor and extremely poor among Venezuelan population were 33.9% and 23.2%, respectively, in 2006.....

....and the Venezuelan Gini coefficient has improved to where it matches the .45 that we in the US, "enjoy".....

A pre-requisite for the continued posts from powerclown and ace is that they ignore the core point that I have made and supported...
Venezuela has a huge petroleum export potential....much greater than the potential for the US to continue to pay for vast volumes of imported petroleum. If the price of petroleum falls, it will be because of a decline in economic activity of the nation that uses 25 percent of the world's total daily petroleum output, running up an ever increasing amount of debt, in exchange for this petroleum...

Venezuela; important exporter of petroleum....a source just 4 0r 5 days shipping days away from US refineries, vs. alternative middle eastern sources, 35 to 40 shipping days away.

US, the world's leading debtor nation, running an $850 billion annual trade deficit, and a chronic $400 billion annual treasury debt increase rate, driven by off-budget expenses for ill planned, and executed wars and occupations, and for off the books appropriations designed to make the official "budget deficit", appear to be improving....when it must compete with a legacy in year ending October, 2000, of just an $18 billion annual treasury debt increase....

Yet powerclown and ace post no sign that they are concerned about the impending and seemingly unavoidable US dollar and domestic economy "train wreck" trend that is the exact opposite of the trend that the Venezuelan people, led by Mr. Chavez, a leader who appears to be executing in a way that demonstrates talent and ability that we in the US can only envy. Chavez enjoys excellent relations with leaders and populations in almost the entire hemisphere, and his concern and compassion for the poor set an inspiring example of his humanity, vs.
Mr. Bush's "record" ????

The following article tells us that the Venezuela national oil company holds financial stakes in more than half of the heavy crude oil refineries in the US that if ships oil to, and makes a convincing case that the US cannot curtail Venezuelan oil purchases without inflicting at least as much pain on itself, as it might inflcit on Venezuela, an exporter with more options than the US if the trade relationship was diminished, especially since the US goes further in debt to buy every imported barrel, while Venzuela grows wealthier with each barrel of oil that it sells, whether to the US or to the Asian market....

Quote:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p.../vzimpacts.htm

Impacts of the Venezuelan Crude Oil Production Loss
By Joanne Shore and John Hackworth1

Introduction

The loss of almost 3 million barrels per day of crude oil production in Venezuela following a strike in December 2002 resulted in an increase in the world price of crude oil. However, in the short term, the volume loss probably affected the United States more than most other areas. This country receives more than half of Venezuela's crude and product exports, and replacing the lost volumes proved difficult....

Quote:

http://www.stockhouse.com/mediascan/...newsid=8858220

Saudis slap big hike on heavy crude oil prices

8/6/2007 6:17:00 PM ET
The Standard

Saudi Arabia has raised the official selling prices of its heavier crudes in September by more than expected for Asian buyers, setting Arab Heavy at its highest in two years, traders said yesterday.

The world's top oil exporter also raised prices to Europe but cut the OSPs sharply for all its crude supplies to the United States. For Asian customers, Arab Heavy was set at a discount of US$3.60 (HK$28.08) a barrel to the Oman/Dubai average, up 70 percent from August and at the strongest level since July 2005, exceeding the top end of forecasts in a survey last week.

<h2>"Refiners in Asia are all after medium and heavy crudes. It's very economical for them now</h2>," a seller said, referring to the relatively cheaper heavy crude grades compared with lighter Brent-linked crudes.....

Quote:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Venezuela/Oil.html
<img src="http://www.eia.doe.gov/images/eia_new.gif">

According to Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Venezuela had 79.7 billion barrels of proven conventional oil reserves, the largest amount in the Western Hemisphere. This estimate, however, does not include substantial extra-heavy and bitumen deposits, which could be as high as 270 billion barrels. Venezuela is a founding member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), and it is a significant supplier of crude oil to the world market: in 2005, Venezuela was the world’s eight largest net oil exporter, and the largest net oil exporter in the Western Hemisphere......

....Exploration and Production
Venezuela’s actual level of crude oil production is difficult to determine, with the country and independent industry analysts offering differing estimates. According to statements by the Venezuelan government, the country currently produces 3.3 million bbl/d of oil. On the other hand, most industry analysts and EIA estimate that the country currently produces 2.8-2.9 million bbl/d of oil. These estimates conclude that the country has not fully recovered from the strikes of 2002-2003 and that secondary indicators, such as economic data from Venezuela’s central bank, support a lower production figure. ......

....In the past, Venezuela regularly exceeded its OPEC crude oil production quota. However, since his election in 1998, President Chavez has maintained a policy of strong adherence to the country’s quota, seeking to increase oil revenues through higher world oil prices rather than increased production. In order to meet its quota obligations, Venezuela has occasionally shut-in some production and delayed bringing new capacity online. Most independent analysts believe, though, that Venezuela is currently producing well below its current (July 2005) quota of 3.22 million bbl/d of crude oil.

PdVSA
It is difficult to assess how much oil PdVSA actually produces, due to the issues discussed above. Independent analysts estimate that the company produces around 1.6 million bbl/d of crude oil, or around 60 percent of Venezuela’s total crude oil production (Note: this estimate includes 100,000 bbl/d of crude oil production capacity that was formerly held by OSA operators, but is now operated directly by PdVSA). This represents a decrease of 30 percent below independent estimates of pre-strike PdVSA crude oil production of 2.2 million bbl/d. On the other hand, PdVSA executives maintain that the company has fully revoked from the strike and currently produces at least 2.2 million bbl/d.

Venezuela has four major sedimentary basins: Maracaibo, Falcon, Apure, and Oriental. The crude oil held in these fields has an average API gravity of less than 20°, making Venezuela's conventional crude oil heavy by international standards. As a result, much of Venezuela’s oil production must go to specialized domestic and international refineries. The Maracaibo basin contains slightly less than half of PdVSA’s oil production. The fields in this area are very mature, requiring heavy investment to maintain current capacity. Centers of production in the area include Tomoporo, Lagunillas, and Tiajuana. In late 2004, PdVSA completed an expansion project at the Tomoporo field that increased production to 116,000 bbl/d from 100,000 bbl/d. PdVSA stated that Tomoporo contains over one billion barrels of recoverable reserves, and the company hopes that future expansion will increase production at the field to 250,000 bbl/d by 2008. Adjacent to Tomoporo, PdVSA is also conducting exploratory operations in the Franquera field, which it believes contains 500 million barrels of reserves. PdVSA hopes to increase production from the Tiajuana field from its current 312,000 bbl/d to 527,000 bbl/d by 2012. In order to mitigate steep decline rates in the Maracaibo Basin, PdVSA re-injects natural gas into the reservoirs in order to increase pressure.

In general, the fields in the Oriental basin are less mature than those in the west, and they were some of the first fields brought online after the 2002-2003 strike. In November 2004, the company announced that it had discovered sizable deposits of medium crude oil in the Travis field, also in Monagas state.....

....Strategic Associations
Venezuela contains billions of barrels in extra-heavy crude oil and bitumen deposits, most of which are situated in the Orinoco Belt in central Venezuela. Estimates of the recoverable reserves from the Orinoco Belt range from 100 to 270 billion barrels. PdVSA has established four strategic associations to exploit these resources. The strategic associations convert the extra heavy crude and bitumen from approximately 9° API to lighter, sweeter crude, known as syncrude, at the Jose refinery complex on Venezuela’s northern coast. According to industry estimates, the four projects currently produce a combined 580,000 bbl/d of syncrude (see table).

Venezuela plans to aggressively develop the Orinoco Belt oil resources in the coming years. PdVSA has begun a reserves certification program to increase the amount of proven oil reserves held by the country. The program, dubbed “Magna Reserva,” includes seismic studies conducted by their company and several foreign partners in 27 blocks, and it is the first step towards more aggressive development of the Orinoco Belt reserves: companies that participate in the Magna Reserva will be the first considered for new upstream developments. PdVSA has teamed almost exclusively with foreign national oil companies for the program, including Petrobras (Brazil), Petropars (Iran), CNPC (China), and ONGC (India)......

....Orimulsion
Orimulsion® is a patented product developed by PdVSA for use as a boiler fuel. PdVSA markets Orimulsion as an alternative to coal or fuel oil, especially in power plants. It is a mixture of approximately 70 percent natural bitumen, 30 percent water, and less than 1 percent surfactants (emulsifiers). Bitumen is a non-oil hydrocarbon and not counted towards Venezuela's OPEC crude oil production quota.

The future of Orimulsion production is unclear. In 2005, PdVSA announced that it would cease Orimulsion production and close its sole production facility in Cerro Negro. According to the company, high world oil prices meant that it was more profitable to sell Orimulsion feedstock directly. However, in 2006, PdVSA and CNPC inaugurated the new Sinovensa project, which will supply two power plants in China and meet some of PdVSA’s Orimulsion supply commitments. Sinovensa currently produces 80,000 bbl/d of Orimulsion, eventually peaking at 125,000 bbl/d.

Venezuela consistently ranks as one of the top four sources of U.S. oil imports. Exports
The United States is the largest destination of Venezuela’s petroleum exports. During the first half of 2006, Venezuela exported 1.45 million bbl/d of crude oil and petroleum products to the United States, 8 percent lower than the same period last year. Over the long term, Venezuela’s exports to the United States have increased, but its share of U.S. total imports has fallen from 50 percent in 1960 to 11 percent in 2005. The U.S. Gulf Coast is the largest recipient of these imports, with refineries there specifically configured to handle Venezuelan crude varieties.

Besides the United States, other important destinations of Venezuelan petroleum exports include South America, Europe, and the Caribbean, though much of the crude oil that is exported to the Caribbean is later re-exported as petroleum products to the United States. One of the fastest growing destinations of Venezuelan crude oil exports has been China. FACTS reported that China imported 69,600 bbl/d of crude oil from Venezuela during the first half of 2006, up from 27,500 bbl/d during the same period in 2005. Venezuelan petroleum product exports to China are also increasing, especially fuel oil and Orimulsion from the Sinovensa facility (see above). In recent years, Venezuela has prioritized the diversification of its petroleum export destinations away from the United States, but the U.S. market will likely still remain Venezuela’s most important market for the foreseeable future.

Refining
According to OGJ, Venezuela has 1.28 million barrels per day (bbl/d) of crude oil refining capacity, all operated by PdVSA. The major facilities include the Paraguana Refining Center (955,000 bbl/d), Puerto de la Cruz (195,000 bbl/d), and El Palito (126,900 bbl/d). PdVSA announced in August 2005 that it would spend $5 billion to build three new refineries in Venezuela and upgrade two existing facilities, El Palito and Puerto la Cruz.

CITGO
CITGO is a wholly-owned subsidiary of PdVSA that has some 14,000 branded retail outlets (both directly owned and affiliates) in the United States. CITGO operates three product refineries (Lake Charles, LA; Corpus Christi, TX; Lemont, IL), with a combined crude oil distillation capacity of 755,400 bbl/d. The company also holds a 50 percent stake in Lyondell’s Houston, TX refinery, though Lyondell announced in August 2006 that it will be buying CITGO’s stake for $2 billion. Finally, CITGO operates two asphalt refineries (Paulsboro, NJ; Savannah, GA), which it has been trying to sell. CITGO sources most of its crude oil under long-term contracts with PdVSA, though the Lemont facility receives most of its feedstock from Canada. Besides its holding through CITGO, PdVSA also owns shares in some U.S. crude oil refining capacity directly, including a 50 percent stake in the Chalmette facility in Louisiana and certain units at ConocoPhillips’ Sweeny, Texas refinery.

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4871938.stm
Monday, 3 April 2006, 11:54 GMT 12:54 UK

Chavez rules out return to cheap oil
By Meirion Jones
Producer, BBC Newsnight

If you thought high oil prices were just a blip think again - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has ruled out any return to the era of cheap oil.

President Chavez launching one of his government's social initiatives
Mr Chavez has spent some of the oil money on social projects
In an interview with BBC Newsnight's Greg Palast, Mr Chavez - who is due to host the Opec meeting on 1 June in Caracas - said he would ask the oil cartel to set $50 a barrel as the long term level.

During the 1990s the price of oil had hovered around the $20 mark falling as low as $10 a barrel in early 1999. ....

....Analysis by the US Department of Energy (DoE) - seen by Newsnight - shows that at $50 a barrel Venezuela - not Saudi Arabia - will have the biggest oil reserves in Opec.

Venezuela has vast deposits of extra-heavy oil in the Orinoco. Traditionally these have not been counted because at $20 a barrel they were too expensive to exploit - but at $50 a barrel melting them into liquid petroleum becomes extremely profitable.

<h3>The DoE report shows that at today's prices Venezuela's oil reserves are bigger than those of the entire Middle East - including Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Iran and Iraq.</h3>

The US agency also identifies Canada as another future oil superpower.

Venezuela's deposits alone could extend the oil age for another 100 years.

The DoE estimates that the Venezuelan government controls 1.3 trillion barrels of oil - more than the entire declared oil reserves of the rest of the planet.

Mr Chavez told Newsnight that "Venezuela has the largest oil reserves in the world. In the future Venezuela won't have any more oil - but that's in the 22nd Century." ....

powerclown · 08-08-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyy

Well, yeah, given the definition of communism and socialism as Something Very Bad, it's only a Matter of Time before the predetermined end is reached.

It's not something inherently bad, inherently right or wrong or evil - its something that doesn't work. Like a fat guy at a triathlon.
Why do you think that the overwhelming majority of the leading world powers are based on a representative form of decentralized government?
Why isn't the world instead filled with thriving, peaceful, successful, independent, self-sustaining and harmonious communist nations?

roachboy · 08-08-2007, 05:22 PM

you ducked the question, powerclown. how exactly is chavez communist? why is he not more a socialist? do you understand that there is a distinction?

as for your assurance that you can foresee the political future, let me tell you that the reason things appear so clear is because you dont know what you are talking about.

powerclown · 08-08-2007, 05:54 PM

Like a wet fart morphing into a bolus; there is socialism then communism.

Baraka_Guru · 08-08-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Like a wet fart morphing into a bolus; there is socialism then communism.

Ah, yes. That would explain Communist Britain.

host · 08-08-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Like a wet fart morphing into a bolus; there is socialism then communism.

Thanks for sharing how "you Know what you know" !
Question for you....what, should happen, if a nineteen year old ivy league college drop out was to come upon an opportunity to pay a small fee for the rights to license a rudimentary computer operating system (OS), and convince a
huge, multinational corporation to pay a generous sum to use that OS in it's own machines, while not prohibiting the young "go between" from preserving his control of that OS...and the "go between" then has the good fortune, and business/promotional accumen, to further develop and parlay that OS into a high growth company that manages, in a few short years, to go public and attain a market cap that is equal to 60 percent of the total wealth in the US, with the young "go between" owning 87 percent of his company's shares....?

The young software company chairman owns shares with a total value equal to that of all other assets in the US, and on the strength of his company's "one product", leveraged via competition crushing tactics and skillful marketing, into a "must have" item for one third of all adults in the developed world, and nearly every business office.

In just a few years, he sells 90 percent of his shares into the market, and he then holds diversified assets nearly equal to the combined assets of everyone else in the US.....

From your POV....what happens next......do we then muddle along in a "free market", "low tax environment", with a wealth distribution "arrangement" that amounts to; "young go between" owns 50 percent of total US assets, top one percent of population owns 16 percent, next nine percent owns 19 percent of total assets, next 40 percent owns 13-3/4 percent of total assets, and the bottom 50 percent..... 150 million people, own the remaining 1-1/4 percent of total US assets.....?

The distribution is almost as extreme now, as what I've just described....the bottom half in the US own 2-1/2 percent of all assets, and the top one percent own 32 percent.....

Is there ever a point....a wealth or income distribution ratio..... where your advocacy for "free markets", and "the individual" would seem "extreme".... even to you?

Is this what's next, for us? When is this ship scheduled to dock in Savannah, NOLA, or in San Ysidro, in Dearborn, or in Milwaukee?

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=12571711
U.S. Sends Hospital Ship to Latin America

Listen to this story... by Lourdes Garcia Navarro

All Things Considered, August 7, 2007

....The U.S. military hospital ship Comfort is touring a dozen countries, providing a host of medical facilities to poor people in places like Nicaragua, Colombia and Panama.....

aceventura3 · 08-09-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

....and powerclown and ace post that "the bad people", are the ones who have brought about this transformation:

For the record I have not made a comment on people being good or bad relative to Chavez or his policies supported by the majority in Venezuela. I simple don't agree with Chavez and his approach to managing the Venezuelan economy.

Quote:

Yet powerclown and ace post no sign that they are concerned about the impending and seemingly unavoidable US dollar and domestic economy "train wreck" trend that is the exact opposite of the trend that the Venezuelan people, led by Mr. Chavez, a leader who appears to be executing in a way that demonstrates talent and ability that we in the US can only envy.

The issues facing the US economy are worthy of a different thread. I don't want to be falsely accused of another thread hijack.

I have posted data concerning some disturbing issues facing the Venezuelan economy. If you choose to ignore it and focus on what appears to be short-term gains, that is your choice. A country exporting millions of barrels of oil per day, when oil prices are at historical highs should be doing well. The question is - can they sustain the conditions created by the windfall over the past few years.

It is interesting - When Exxon-Mobil makes "windfall" profits under the current market conditions it is a problem in the liberal mind.

When a centralized economy like in Venezuela makes "windfall" profits from a capitalist international economy, the liberal mind sees it as an example of how socialism is better than capitalism.

I see profits as profits, and in the longterm a significant share of those profits have to go back into capital investment or the future of ongoing profits is at risk.

The liberal mind seems to be very short-term oriented.

roachboy · 08-09-2007, 07:44 AM

what the hell is "the liberal mind" ace?

aceventura3 · 08-09-2007, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what the hell is "the liberal mind" ace?

I have given a few examples. Generally the liberal mind is an illogical mind full of contradictions. At this point I don't know if the liberal mind is blindly accepting and unaware of the flaws in their logic or if they just take a ,*uck it, attitude and say it doesn't matter as long as people buy into their preconceived notions. Which one do you think it is?

ubertuber · 08-09-2007, 08:12 AM

I'd say it's the plank in your eye.

I'm not trying to single you out, Ace, but in my experience, both sides think the other is illogical and full of contradictions.

Willravel · 08-09-2007, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have given a few examples. Generally the liberal mind is an illogical mind fully of contradictions. At this point I don't know if the liberal mind is blindly accepting and unaware of the flaws in their logic or if they just take a ,*uck it, attitude and say it doesn't matter as long as people buy into their preconceived notions. Which one do you think it is?

I'd guess that it's simply above most conservative's heads, really.

Ah, Uber liked post #10!

aceventura3 · 08-09-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I'd say it's the plank in your eye.

I'm not trying to single you out, Ace, but in my experience, both sides think the other is illogical and full of contradictions.

My response to points made by Host are:

* Price of oil is and has been at record levels for the past few years.
*Venezuela exports over 2 million barrels of oil per day.
*I don't dispute economic conditions in Venezuela have improved.
*I point out long-term capital investments needed in order for Venezuela to sustain economic growth.
*I point out that current conditions are not conducive for private investment due to Chavez's economic policies. A position supported by a study done by the World Economic Forum.
*I point out the long-term relationship Venezuala has with the US. How there has been favorable tax treatment for above market pricing.
*I point out the irony of a guy with a socialist agenda in his country is in bed with a capitalist country like the US, and how the US market is in part responsible for the economic gains in his country.
*I point out that economic policies have long tails.

I do all of this, and what do I get back?

That I think they are "bad people".
That I did not comment on the US economic issues.
That I side with the Venezuelan elite.
That the US economy is worse than the Venezuelan economy.

O.k.

roachboy · 08-09-2007, 09:22 AM

that's great, ace..

putting aside this strawman of yours----let's go against my better judgment and continue.

so this from the morning's guardian:

Quote:

Chávez opens his wallet wider to boost Latin American influence

· £1.4bn for Buenos Aires as regional tour starts
· Socialist leader strives to break IMF's grip on area

Rory Carroll in Caracas and Uki Goni in Buenos Aires
Thursday August 9, 2007
The Guardian

President Hugo Chávez has launched an intensive tour of South America to shore up Venezuela's influence over the region and to loosen the grip of western creditors. The socialist leader promised to buy up to $1bn (£500m) of Argentinian bonds and to help fund a $400m gas plant, bolstering his reputation as a benefactor of Buenos Aires's economic recovery.

Mr Chávez was expected to announce other economic and energy deals during visits to Uruguay, Ecuador and Bolivia, underlining his ambition to forge a common Latin American front under his leadership.

"We need to unite and the north American empire doesn't want us to unite," the president told reporters in Buenos Aires. "It is a battle of interests, but we will win this battle."

The four-nation tour, which started on Tuesday, is an attempt to flex Venezuela's muscle after a series of setbacks in South America, including stalled or diluted initiatives by Caracas for a pan-regional bank and a gas pipeline.

Flush with oil revenues, Mr Chávez said his government had bought $500m of Argentinian bonds and would buy $500m more in coming months, bringing to more than $5bn the amount of Argentinian bonds bought by Venezuela in two years.

It confirms Venezuela's position as one of Argentina's prime lenders and will permit Buenos Aires to meet its foreign commitments this month, which total $2.5bn, just when it was having difficulty attracting foreign investment and credit.

The deal will also help Mr Chávez to soak up some of the liquidity in Venezuela, which has pushed the country's inflation rate close to 20%, the region's highest.

It has also cast Mr Chávez as the man who helped a proud ally recover from a 2002 economic crash which had threatened to make Argentina a basket case at the mercy of organisations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, both widely loathed in Latin America as instruments of western domination.

"This is a big effort for Venezuela, but we are doing it because we know what is at stake. Argentina is freeing itself from Dracula, it is cutting ties with the IMF," said Mr Chávez.

In January 2006, Argentina repaid its entire remaining $9.6bn debt to the IMF, giving President Néstor Kirchner kudos at home for restoring national pride and sovereignty.

Mr Chávez's latest cash injection was a reminder to Mr Kirchner's politician wife, Cristina, that she too will owe Caracas if she wins the presidency in October's election after her husband steps down.

Some critics say the first couple have merely swapped one master, the IMF, for a more radical and controversial one. Argentina was now "Chávez-dependent", said Joaquín Morales Solá, a columnist with the daily La Nación.

Critics in Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua have made similar accusations against their own governments.

Mr Chávez's oil diplomacy has also earned him influence in Cuba.

However, Michael Shifter, of the Inter-American Dialogue thinktank, said the Venezuelan leader might be disappointed if he expected unquestioning loyalty from Argentina and other beneficiaries.

"It is doubtful if he will be able to solidify his anti-US coalition in South America through his largesse," Mr Shifter said. "There are questions about how much he can actually deliver on so many promises to his allies. And there are signs that countries like Argentina, driven by pragmatism, are looking increasingly to expand and diversify their economic and political relationships."

In setbacks for Mr Chávez, his dreams of building a gas pipeline from the Caribbean to the South Atlantic have stalled, Brazil is dragging its feet over his plan for a Bank of the South, to rival the World Bank, and Venezuela's bid to join Mercosur, a regional trade bloc, has run into the sand.

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, a friend but also rival of Mr Chávez, is touring the region this week to promote his country's leadership in biofuels.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/...144693,00.html

here's what is self-evident:

ace is simply recycling the logic of neoliberalism.
of course it has no name so there is no reason to expect or even hope that he'd relativize it.

so let's start looking at the ideology.
first, it is simply not the case in places which are not the united states, that this ideology has no name, nor is it assumed that a worldview structured by this ideology corresponds to reality. in most of the southern hemisphere, neoliberalism is transparently what it is: simply a mask for new forms of american domination (see above).

if you endorse this ideological framework, it follows that you have to endorse its consequences....that is the whole of ongoing efforts to maintain subordination in south america by way of the imf/world bank "structural adjustment" pathways to debt peonage and social disaster in the name of "free trade" or "market liberalization..." generally, the way of doing this is to invoke the "long view" as if neoliberalism has some monopoly on it.

so you'd have to endorse the actions of the imf in south america, for example-----that institution that has been turned on an adhoc basis from its functions in the context of bretton woods into a kind of nozzle for spraying the pseudo-logic of neoliberalism abroad in the world, generating social and economic crisis in the name of resolving social and economic crisis, reinforcing and solidifying neocolonial economic arrangements in the name of freeing southern hemisphere countries from neocolonial economic arrangements, conflating openning commercial contexts with enabling american domination.

it's easy to believe that the imf/worldbank/bank of the americas system functions in ways that are consistent with the claims of neoliberal ideologues if you refuse to look at actual information about the *consequences* of these policies and actions, preferring instead to wrap yourself in the internal rationale for implementing them in the first place. but if your thinking about neoliberalism extends only as far as the ideology itself, and does not extend to thinking consequences--and this is all too routine for the free-marketeers in general--it is hard to imagine the basis for claims to monopolize "the long view"...

fact is that the imf/world bank/bank of the americas system had engendered little but the exacerbation of the worst features of capitalism. the twist is that these features are now firmly aligned with the image of the united states itself simply because american policies opened these spaces up to/for them.

the only difference between this an earlier forms of neo-colonial domination is that this time the americans sell their domination as freedom itself, and in the process reduce that language to ash.

so chavez undertakes a pretty ambitious project outlined above--working to break the domination of these american institutions that by default have for the past 30 years set the ideological tenor for the delerium that is globalizing capitalism by breaking the hold exercised over southern hemisphere countries using the instrument of debt.

and while the longer-term consequences of this debt transfer are not evident at this point (e.g. whether there are strings attached as there always are from us sourced loans), the move itself is a real threat to the primary mechanism the us has been using to enforce its regime in south america and as such is a blow directed at one of the primary bases of american political and economic power in the region.

**that** is why the american right hates hugo chavez.

powerclown · 08-09-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

The distribution is almost as extreme now, as what I've just described....the bottom half in the US own 2-1/2 percent of all assets, and the top one percent own 32 percent.....

Every nation on earth since the dawn of mankind has had issues of unequal wealth distribution. There currently are many, many other nations with an even more extreme inequality of distribution. It is a huge international challenge, and not unique to America.

aceventura3 · 08-09-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so let's start looking at the ideology.
first, it is simply not the case in places which are not the united states, that this ideology has no name, nor is it assumed that a worldview structured by this ideology corresponds to reality. in most of the southern hemisphere, neoliberalism is transparently what it is: simply a mask for new forms of american domination (see above).

On what basis do you support the notion that the US wants "domination", I think we want access to the oil at a far price.

Quote:

if you endorse this ideological framework, it follows that you have to endorse its consequences....that is the whole of ongoing efforts to maintain subordination in south america by way of the imf/world bank "structural adjustment" pathways to debt peonage and social disaster in the name of "free trade" or "market liberalization..." generally, the way of doing this is to invoke the "long view" as if neoliberalism has some monopoly on it.

If Venezuela starts selling oil to China and India are you going to suggest those countries have the same motives as the US, why or why not?

Quote:

so you'd have to endorse the actions of the imf in south america, for example-----that institution that has been turned on an adhoc basis from its functions in the context of bretton woods into a kind of nozzle for spraying the pseudo-logic of neoliberalism abroad in the world, generating social and economic crisis in the name of resolving social and economic crisis, reinforcing and solidifying neocolonial economic arrangements in the name of freeing southern hemisphere countries from neocolonial economic arrangements, conflating openning commercial contexts with enabling american domination.

How does the US dominate the region? Don't the countries in that region have free opportunity to exploit their resources on the world market and exclude the US - like let's say Cuba?

Quote:

it's easy to believe that the imf/worldbank/bank of the americas system functions in ways that are consistent with the claims of neoliberal ideologues if you refuse to look at actual information about the *consequences* of these policies and actions, preferring instead to wrap yourself in the internal rationale for implementing them in the first place. but if your thinking about neoliberalism extends only as far as the ideology itself, and does not extend to thinking consequences--and this is all too routine for the free-marketeers in general--it is hard to imagine the basis for claims to monopolize "the long view"...

Taking a shot at the "long-view"? Do you not believe the long-term needs for capital investment are real? If so, what are they in the context of Venezuela?

Quote:

fact is that the imf/world bank/bank of the americas system had engendered little but the exacerbation of the worst features of capitalism. the twist is that these features are now firmly aligned with the image of the united states itself simply because american policies opened these spaces up to/for them.

Do you conclude that the US and US capitalism is primarily responsible for the conditions in Latin America, the good and the bad or just the bad?

Quote:

the only difference between this an earlier forms of neo-colonial domination is that this time the americans sell their domination as freedom itself, and in the process reduce that language to ash.

Are we selling it? Implying there are willing buyers. Or, are we forcing it on people? Implying the domination you suggested earlier? Now you have me confused.

Quote:

so chavez undertakes a pretty ambitious project outlined above--working to break the domination of these american institutions that by default have for the past 30 years set the ideological tenor for the delerium that is globalizing capitalism by breaking the hold exercised over southern hemisphere countries using the instrument of debt.

If Venezuela holds Argentinian debt that is o.k., but if the US hold Argentinian debt thats a problem - seems like a contradiction, please clarify. I see debt as debt, regardless of who holds it.

On a side note perhaps Venezuela would be better off investing the money in the proposed pipe-line, oil rigs, new wells, etc.

Quote:

and while the longer-term consequences of this debt transfer are not evident at this point (e.g. whether there are strings attached as there always are from us sourced loans), the move itself is a real threat to the primary mechanism the us has been using to enforce its regime in south america and as such is a blow directed at one of the primary bases of american political and economic power in the region.

Perhaps the country acquiring the debt has some responsibility in regard to the consequences. How about that? Or, is that a non issue, since it doesn't support your view that the US is evil.

Quote:

**that** is why the american right hates hugo chavez.

Cite one source where someone on the right has used the word "hate" when talking about Chavez or Venezuala - and I will fill-up at Citco for the next month, otherwise I will continue going to any other gas station but Citco.

ubertuber · 08-09-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Every nation on earth since the dawn of mankind has had issues of unequal wealth distribution. There currently are many, many other nations with an even more extreme inequality of distribution. It is a huge international challenge, and not unique to America.

Of course what you say is true, but that doesn't exclude the issue from consideration and us from exercising judgment in our systems of government. While "every nation on earth...has had issues of unequal wealth distribution", those nations have dealt with the issue in different ways. Those different reactions have had different effects. Shouldn't we at least be conscious of what we're doing and what effect it might have, even if we're confronting universal conditions?

Personally, I think you'd be on more solid ground if you tried to argue that the ethics of economic freedom trump economic equality. That's not necessarily my view, but from there you could choose to ignore the practical effects of your argument.

host · 08-09-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

On what basis do you support the notion that the US wants "domination", I think we want access to the oil at a far price.

If Venezuela starts selling oil to China and India are you going to suggest those countries have the same motives as the US, why or why not?

How does the US dominate the region? Don't the countries in that region have free opportunity to exploit their resources on the world market and exclude the US - like let's say Cuba?

Taking a shot at the "long-view"? Do you not believe the long-term needs for capital investment are real? If so, what are they in the context of Venezuela?

Do you conclude that the US and US capitalism is primarily responsible for the conditions in Latin America, the good and the bad or just the bad?

Are we selling it? Implying there are willing buyers. Or, are we forcing it on people? Implying the domination you suggested earlier? Now you have me confused.

If Venezuela holds Argentinian debt that is o.k., but if the US hold Argentinian debt thats a problem - seems like a contradiction, please clarify. I see debt as debt, regardless of who holds it.

On a side note perhaps Venezuela would be better off investing the money in the proposed pipe-line, oil rigs, new wells, etc.

Perhaps the country acquiring the debt has some responsibility in regard to the consequences. How about that? Or, is that a non issue, since it doesn't support your view that the US is evil.

Cite one source where someone on the right has used the word "hate" when talking about Chavez or Venezuala - and I will fill-up at Citco for the next month, otherwise I will continue going to any other gas station but Citco.

ace...I posted news from a July 9th Bloomberg report that confirms a demand in Asia for the heavy oil that Venezuela is awash in.

If this is a discussion about whether "flaws" in the leadership of Hugo Chavez justify the condemnation of him by US officials and at least one religious leaders, doesn't it follow that our own system must actually be of superior potential...it's government, social framework, fiscal soundness...for any of us to post some of the negative opinions about Chavez and his government and Venezeula's future prospects....with ours looking...FAILED....headed for a "blow up"? Treasury debt here was $1 trillion in Oct., 1980 $4.2 Trillion in Oct. 1992, $5.6 trillion in Oct., 2000, and $8.8 trillion, now. US trade was balanced in the mid 90's...we run an $850 billion annual deficit, now.... We're going backwards as far as human rights and our bill of rights.... Yet some of us tout the superiority of "our system"? Doesn't it cost a lot more to service just the interest on $8.8 trillion in debt, than it did on $5.6 trillion? Isn't a currency supported by huge oil export potential, sounder than one supported by an expensive to maintain military as the only offset to dramatically rising trade and treasury debt? Who are we to talk?

Our Latin American foreign policy is offensive to me, ace...and I don't live there. The intent of the Bush admin. was the thugs appointed to represent the US in that region.... I try and try, ace....to share what I read that influences me to disagree with almost everything that you post...and it seems to not affect you.... but I keep trying, anyway:

In post #18m you offered "some history", that includes none of this....and Venezuela is a country of only 30 million....would you have omiitted "9/11" in any serious attempt to present a "background" on Bush's "War on Terror"?

II Facts click to show

Quote:

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/C/58-ing.html

II Facts

2. In Section III of its application, the Commission presented the facts that originated this case, and said that:

a. on February 16, 1989, the then President of Venezuela, Carlos Andrés Pérez, announced a series of structural adjustment measures to refinance the external debt through the International Monetary Fund that were implemented on February 27 that year;

b. on February 27, 1989, an undetermined number of persons from the poorer sectors of the population began a series of disturbances in Garenas, State of Miranda, owing to the increase in urban transport rates and the failure of the Executive to grant a preferential rate to students. These disturbances then extended “to other parts of the metropolitan area of Caracas, and Caricuao, La Guaira, Maracay, Valencia, Barquisimeto, Guayana, Mérida, Maracaibo, and zones adjacent to the transportation terminal”;

c. the disturbances consisted mainly in burning urban transportation vehicles and looting and destroying commercial properties; these events caused extensive damage to public and private property;

d. on February 27, 1989, a sector of the Metropolitan Police was on strike, and consequently did not intervene promptly to control the disturbances. According to declarations of the then President of the Republic, published in the newspaper El Nacional of June 10, 1990, “at the beginning, there was no organized body to prevent or deal with what was happening”; in the same declaration he also said that “upon returning from Barquisimeto, when passing through the area of Caracas near the Presidential Palace called El Silencio, [he saw] the shattered shop windows; arriving at Miraflores, he called the Minister of Defense and ordered him to mobilize the troops”;

e. the armed forces were entrusted with controlling the situation, and, to this end, about nine thousand soldiers were brought in from the interior of the country; these were young men of 17 and 18 years of age, recruited in February 1989. From statements made by senior Army officers, former Ministers of State and the former President of the Republic, it is clear that the armed forces were not prepared to assume control of public order and the young men who were sent were a danger to the life and physical integrity of the population, owing to their youth and inexperience. Similarly, it is evident that these young soldiers were equipped with assault weapons (7.62-mm light automatic rifles) to control the civilian population, and AMX-13 armored vehicles. The officers used 9-mm heavy-duty guns.

f. on February 28, 1989, the Executive issued Decree No. 49, ordering the suspension of the following guarantees established in the Venezuelan Constitution: individual freedom (Article 60.1, 2, 6 and 10); right to immunity of domicile (Article 62); freedom of movement (Article 64); freedom of expression (Article 66); right of assembly (Article 71) and right to take part in peaceful manifestations (Article 115). According to the Commission, the constitutional guarantees were reestablished on March 22, 1989;

g. during the 23 days that the suspension of guarantees lasted and, in particular, as of March 1, 1989, the Venezuelan armed forces were in control of the territory and the population; moreover, at first they imposed a curfew that obliged people to remain in their homes between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

h. during the state of emergency, the State security bodies, together with the Metropolitan Police, the National Guard and the Army, carried out a series of operations to repress acts of violence;

i. according to official figures, the events of February and March 1989 left a balance of 276 dead, numerous injured, several disappeared and heavy material losses. However, this list was invalidated by the subsequent appearance of mass graves;

j. as of February 28, 1989, a secret military plan entitled “Avila” was imposed on the civilian population. This plan was conceived during the 1960s when, according to the former Minister of Defense, Ítalo del Valle Alliegro, there were illegal armed groups in Venezuela. In his words, this plan “was executed, despite the length of time [that had elapsed] without implementing it”; however, “it had to be revised and updated in view of the new circumstances”;

k. two non-governmental organizations that carried out investigations in situ, as well as international experts, agreed that most of the deaths were due to indiscriminate firing by agents of the Venezuelan State, while others resulted from extrajudicial executions. They also agreed that the members of the armed forces opened fire against crowds and against homes, which caused the death of many children and innocent people who were not taking part in criminal acts;

l. the victims included seven children and five women. Of the 44 cases, 18 occurred on March 1, 1989, or later although the events had ceased as of February 28 that year when, according to Venezuelan Government reports, the situation was completely controlled; 11 victims were killed in their homes, five of these during curfew hours, and the other seven cases were typical of extrajudicial executions. Regarding the circumstances of death, 14 of the victims died as a result of head injuries caused by firearms, three of them received bullets in the neck, 14 in the thorax or abdomen, and five were shot in the back. Another four victims disappeared in the area controlled by the Army and the Metropolitan Police and, to date, there has been no information on their whereabouts. Furthermore, 32 of these cases were pending before military tribunals or were heard by military tribunals (although some of them also being processed under civil jurisdiction) and in none of the cases has there been a judgement that identifies those responsible and establishes the corresponding penalties.

m. in the cases that are the subject of this application, there was a common pattern of behavior characterized by the disproportionate use of the armed forces in the poorer residential districts. This behavior included hiding and destroying evidence as well as the use of institutional mechanisms that have ensured the impunity of the acts;

n. in the days following the events, the State, through the Executive, ordered that an undetermined number of corpses should be buried in mass graves in the sector known as “La Peste I and II of the Southern General Cemetery of Caracas in order to ‘comply with specific health-related instructions’”;

o. at the time the application was presented - nine years after the exhumations were carried out - investigations remain at the summary proceedings stage which was secret; “this means that, ten years after the events occurred, the victims’ next of kin have not been able to gain access to the file papers or ascertain whether the tribunal hearing the case has issued an interlocutory order”. When the victims’ next of kin were informed of the burial, they immediately approached the competent national authorities in order to seek and claim the corpses. At first, state officials publicly denied the existence of mass graves, but the victims’ next of kin presented a series of proofs to the Venezuelan domestic jurisdictional bodies that established the existence of mass graves in the Southern General Cemetery.

p. on November 5, 1990, the Tenth Criminal Court of First Instance of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas conducted a judicial inspection in the Southern Cemetery to determine alleged irregularities in how the corpses buried in mass graves had been registered and, in the corresponding official record, it “certified that the victims of the events of 27/2/89, buried in the North 6 sector (“la Peste”), are not recorded in the registers…”; and

q. on November 28, 1990, the public was informed that the first remains had appeared in plot number 6 North of the Southern Cemetery General in Caracas. 130 corpses were exhumed; of these only 68 corresponded to persons whose date of death was February and March 1989. On May 30, 1991, the Committee of the next of kin of the victims of the events of February and March 1989 (hereinafter “COFAVIC”), filed a claim before the Tenth Criminal Court of First Instance, owing to a fire in the area of the mass graves.....

Friends of terrorism click to show

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...646835,00.html
Friends of terrorism

Bush's decision to bring back Otto Reich exposes the hypocrisy of the war against terror

Duncan Campbell
Friday February 8, 2002
The Guardian

His name may sound like that of a character from a Mel Brooks musical but Otto Reich is real enough. He has just been appointed by President Bush as assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs - and both the manner of his appointment and the role he will now play have profound implications for a part of the world often disregarded since September 11.

Over the last year President Bush has attempted to bring back into office people who were discredited during the US interventions in Central America in the 1980s and 1990s. One such appointment was that of Elliott Abrams, who had two convictions in 1991 for misleading Congress about the so-called Iran-contra affair. He was pardoned by President Bush's father in 1992 and now enjoys the title of head of the "office of democracy and human rights". Another was John Negroponte, the former US ambassador to Honduras, who was accused by his predecessor of turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed there against leftists because it was felt necessary to remain on good terms with the Honduran government. Negroponte was quietly confirmed as US ambassador to the UN shortly after September 11. But the third appointment is by far the most controversial and potentially divisive.

....Otto Reich is a rightwing Cuban American whose key policy objective is the overthrow of Fidel Castro's regime and whose support base is the Cuban-American community in Florida. President Bush's brother, Jeb, is depending on this community's votes and backing as he runs for re-election as governor of the state later this year.

Otto Reich came to prominence during the Reagan administration when he was appointed head of the office of public diplomacy within the state department. According to the national security archives, Reich used this role to pursue his own agenda to such an extent that in 1987 the Comptroller-General of the US, a Republican appointee, found that some of the efforts of his office were "prohibited, covert propaganda activities ... beyond the range of acceptable agency public information activities". A letter of September 30 1987 concluded that Reich's office had violated "a restriction on the state department's annual appropriations prohibiting the use of federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorised by Congress".

He staffed his unit with CIA and Pentagon "psychological warfare" specialists and discredited journalists whose work the Reagan administration did not like. His office wrote bogus editorial pieces under the names of Nicaraguan contras and got them published in the mainstream media. He reported directly to Oliver North.

Reich also served as US ambassador to Venezuela and was alleged to have used his influence to try and get a US visa for a convicted terrorist, Orlando Bosch, jailed in Venezuela in 1976 for the bombing of a Cubana airliner with 73 people on board. Bosch had already been convicted of a terrorist attack in Miami on a Polish merchant vessel bound for Cuba and jailed in the US.

According to US justice department records: "the files of the FBI and other government agencies contain a large quantity of documentary information which reflects that, beginning in the early 1960s, Bosch held leadership positions in various anti-Castro terrorist organisations ... Bosch has personally advocated, encouraged, organised and participated in acts of terrorist violence in this country as well as various other countries."

Amazingly, Bosch was granted a pardon by George Bush senior in 1990 and is now in Florida, apparently untroubled by the current president's commitment to rooting out terrorism in all its forms. Although many countries seek Bosch's extradition he remains free, protected by the same government that warns other countries that they are either for or against terrorism.

The Democrats on the Senate foreign relations committee had already made it clear that they would oppose Reich's appointment, not least because of the Bosch factor. So President Bush made a "recess appointment" at the beginning of January, which meant that he could side-step the Senate confirmation and avoid the damaging questions which Reich would be asked. ......

Venezuela coup linked to Bush team click to show

Quote:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...688071,00.html
Venezuela coup linked to Bush team

Specialists in the 'dirty wars' of the Eighties encouraged the plotters who tried to topple President Chavez

Observer Worldview

Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday April 21, 2002.....

...The Bush administration has tried to distance itself from the coup. It immediately endorsed the new government under businessman Pedro Carmona. But the coup was sent dramatically into reverse after 48 hours. Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.

The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.

Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in theory to the State Department, but Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House. .......

....Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats in Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country. The objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the US oil market.

Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent.

On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government.

But the crucial figure around the coup was Abrams, who operates in the White House as senior director of the National Security Council for 'democracy, human rights and international opera tions'. He was a leading theoretician of the school known as 'Hemispherism', which put a priority on combating Marxism in the Americas.

It led to the coup in Chile in 1973, and the sponsorship of regimes and death squads that followed it in Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and elsewhere. During the Contras' rampage in Nicaragua, he worked directly to North.

Congressional investigations found Abrams had harvested illegal funding for the rebellion. Convicted for withholding information from the inquiry, he was pardoned by George Bush senior.

A third member of the Latin American triangle in US policy-making is John Negroponte, now ambassador to the United Nations. He was Reagan's ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985 when a US-trained death squad, Battalion 3-16, tortured and murdered scores of activists. A diplomatic source said Negroponte had been 'informed that there might be some movement in Venezuela on Chavez' at the beginning of the year.

More than 100 people died in events before and after the coup. In Caracas on Friday a military judge confined five high-ranking officers to indefinite house arrest pending formal charges of rebellion. .......

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=41
Economic policies have long tails. The decisions Chavez is making today won't be seen immediately. For example, oil is currently selling at all-time highs, and Venezuela is selling most of its oil to the US. The US has refineries that more or less specializes in processing Venezuelan oil. Thing are as good as they can possibly be today due to past investment and relationships made decades ago.

However, current Venezuelan oil wells are producing less oil each month. Investment is needed for improving production and to explore new sources of oil in the country.

The price of oil may go higher given instability in the ME, however, if the ME stabilizes it is highly likely the price of oil will go down. This will hurt their economy which is almost totally defendant on oil. And the sale of that oil to the US.

Investment is needed if Venezuela wants to establish new markets for its oil, in Asia. Currently they have no efficient means to get their oil to those markets.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=43 In theory, however, I think the best economic systems are those where people have an incentive to invest in the future, or capitalism. In theory I side with what you call the "economic elite", although in capitalist systems the poor can easily become rich, this is not true in most other economic systems.

Exxon adds it all up: $36 billion click to show

Quote:

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.ph...ness/exxon.php
Exxon adds it all up: $36 billion
The New York Times, The Associated Press, Bloomberg News
MONDAY, JANUARY 30, 2006

HOUSTON Exxon Mobil, the largest U.S. energy company, posted Monday the highest profit in U.S. corporate history, amplifying concerns over the good fortune of oil companies while soaring energy prices pressure consumers.

.....Profit in 2005 reached $36.13 billion on revenue of $371 billion.

The annual profit easily surpassed the previous record of $25.3 billion, which Exxon had also set in 2004, according to Howard Silverblatt, senior index analyst at Standard & Poor's in New York. Only Ford Motor's profit of $22 billion in 1998 resemble Exxon's success in recent memory, Silverblatt said.

The company's quarterly revenue rose to $99.66 billion from $83.37 billion a year ago but was less than the $100.72 billion Exxon posted in the third quarter, the first time a U.S. public company generated more than $100 billion in sales in a single quarter.

Shares in Exxon rose $1.82, or 3 percent, to close at $63.11 in New York after the company's results beat Wall Street expectations.

Even as investors applauded Exxon's new chief executive, Rex Tillerson, who replaced Lee Raymond at the start of this year, its results masked potentially weaker profits if oil and gas prices begin to decline.

Production at Exxon's oilfields around the world declined 1 percent in 2005, excluding stoppage at platforms in the Gulf of Mexico from last year's hurricanes, illustrating an industry-wide dilemma: an inability to tap into the world's richest oil exploration areas in the Middle East and Venezuela because of political limitations.

"Lack of access to new reserves is the most important problem Exxon and the other large oil companies are facing," said Michael Economides, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Houston. "It should make them paranoid about the future."

Major oil producers like BP and Chevron are exploring more remote areas of the globe and drilling wells to record depths to bolster production as older fields in North America and the North Sea near exhaustion.

Exxon will this year tap new oil fields holding an estimated 1.75 billion barrels, or 34 percent of all the new projects by publicly traded oil companies scheduled for 2006, according to analysts at Deutsche Bank.

However, political uncertainties in oil-rich nations also worked in Exxon's favor recently, as concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions and tension in Nigeria and Venezuela kept oil prices high.

Crude oil prices have doubled in the last two years, driven by strong demand in rising economies of Asia and in the United States. Oil for March delivery rose by 59 cents to close at $68.35 a barrel in New York trading.

The stellar earnings brought fresh criticism of the energy industry in Congress on Monday.....

World Faces Oil 'Supply Crunch' after 2010, IEA Says click to show

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...fag&refer=home
<b>World Faces Oil `Supply Crunch' After 2010, IEA Says (Update2)</b>

By Stephen Voss

July 9 (Bloomberg) -- The world faces an oil ``supply crunch'' after 2010 because demand will outpace the growth in production from non-OPEC countries, according to the International Energy Agency.

Output growth outside of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, led by Russia and Brazil, will be countered by a decline in Europe, the Paris-based agency said in a report today. That shrinks the cushion of excess capacity that OPEC members such as Saudi Arabia provide, the agency said.

``Despite four years of high oil prices, this report sees increasing market tightness beyond 2010, with OPEC spare capacity declining to minimal levels by 2012,'' the IEA said in its Medium-Term Oil Market Report, which is published every six months. ``Low OPEC spare capacity and slow non-OPEC production growth are of significant concern.''

Global oil demand is forecast to expand by 1.9 million barrels a day, or 2.2 percent a year on average, reaching 95.8 million barrels a day by 2012, the IEA said. The fastest growth will occur in Asia and the Middle East, it said. Brent crude oil futures prices have averaged $64.11 a barrel so far this year, down from an average $66.11 last year and $55.25 in 2005.

``Oil and gas price pressures look set to remain in the coming years,'' the IEA said. The agency, an adviser on energy issues to 26 industrialized countries, does not publish a specific price forecast.

Coal, Nuclear

Investment in coal and nuclear power may ease pressure on the oil market after about 2015, the group said. World oil- refining capacity will rise by 10.6 million barrels a day through 2012, which could help reduce prices for gasoline and other refined products, it said.

Brazil, Russia, Canada, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan will show the biggest gains in production among non-OPEC nations over the next five years, the agency said. Those five countries will each expand output during the period by at least 500,000 barrels a day, with Brazil gaining about 1 million barrels a day, the IEA predicted.

The laggards among non-OPEC countries will be the U.K., where output will fall some 600,000 barrels a day over the period, followed by Norway and Mexico. In the U.S., oil production will rise in the Gulf of Mexico, helped by BP Plc's delayed Thunder Horse and Atlantis projects, the IEA said. The gains in the Gulf will be more than offset by reductions elsewhere in the U.S.

Higher oil prices have helped lift shares of the world's largest producers. Exxon Mobil Corp. rose 91 cents, or 1.1 percent, to a record $87.37 at 2 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. Chevron Corp. gained $1.31 to $88.99.

Heavy Oil, Biofuels

Overall, the IEA reduced its projection for non-OPEC supply in 2011 by 1 million barrels a day since its last medium-term report in February because of revisions to data and the reduced reliability of major oil projects being completed on time.

Non-OPEC oil supply, including biofuels, is expected to tally 52.6 million barrels a day in 2012, up from 50 million barrels a day in 2007.

Since that February report, more than 3.2 million barrels a day of new projects in 2007 through 2011 ``have seen their timing slip, emphasizing the scale of the problem,'' the IEA said.

The biggest increases in non-OPEC production will come from nations that produce heavy oil, and from biofuels, rather than so-called conventional crude oil fields, the report showed.

``Our forecast suggests that the non-OPEC, conventional crude component of global production appears, for now, to have reached an effective plateau, rather than a peak,'' the report said. ``Put another way, all of the growth in non-OPEC supply over 2007-2012 comes from gas liquids, extra heavy oil, biofuels'' and by 2012 some coal-to-liquids production in China, it said.

Spare Capacity Cut

Among OPEC nations, the IEA assumes there'll be no expansion of production capacity in Iran, Iraq and Venezuela over the next five years and no resumption of some 500,000 barrels a day of long-shuttered production in Nigeria's delta swamps.

By 2012, the quantity of OPEC crude oil theoretically needed to balance world supply and demand will rise to 36.2 million barrels a day, up from 31.3 million barrels a day for this year. The IEA doesn't directly forecast OPEC production because it can't predict OPEC policy and quota levels.

The constraints in some OPEC nations along with project delays in other countries and a strengthening of world oil demand meant the IEA cut its forecast for OPEC's spare production capacity in 2009 by some 2 million barrels a day since its February report.

`Low Levels'

OPEC spare production capacity, which had risen from low levels in 2004 to almost 3 million barrels a day as of mid-2007, will increase through to 2009 and then decline to between 1.55 million barrels a day and 2.18 million barrels a day by 2012, the report showed.

OPEC's spare, or unused production capacity influences oil prices because that's the cushion of extra supply that can be brought onstream quickly when major disruptions occur elsewhere in the world. Saudi Arabia controls the most spare capacity.

``Despite an increase in biofuels production and a bunching of supply projects over the next few years, OPEC spare capacity is expected to remain relatively constrained before 2009 when slowing upstream capacity growth and accelerating non-OECD demand once more pull it down to uncomfortably low levels,'' it said. .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=45
Yes. Reagan laid the foundation for economic prosperity in the 90's. Clinton did not do anything material to upset the foundation laid by Reagan. Bush's tax cuts will allow our economy to grow at a moderate pace over the next 5 to 10 years. However, some of the fundamental problems facing our economic futures are being ignored in Washington. Social Security and Medicare will ruin the economy given the limited projected growth in our labor force in the decades to come (especially without a guest worker program and what many call amnesty).

We certainly have our problems and issues, as does Venezuela.

Supply-side Spin click to show

Quote:

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

Supply-side Spin
June 11, 2007
Sen. John McCain has said President Bush's tax cuts have increased federal revenues. But revenues would have been even higher without them.
Summary

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has said that the major tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 have "increased revenues." He also said that tax cuts in general increase revenues. That’s highly misleading.

In fact, the last half-dozen years have shown us that we can't have both lower taxes and fatter government coffers. The Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation, the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers and a former Bush administration economist all say that tax cuts lead to revenues that are lower than they otherwise would have been – even if they spur some economic growth. And federal revenues actually declined at the beginning of this decade before rebounding. The growth in the past three years that McCain refers to brings revenues back in line with the 40-year historical average as a percentage of gross domestic product.

It’s unclear how much of the growth can be attributed to the tax cuts. Capital gains tax receipts did increase greatly from 2003 to 2006, but the CBO estimates that they will level off and decrease in the next few years. The growth overwhelmingly resulted from a sharp rise in corporate tax receipts, the cause of which is a topic of debate.....

....Federal agencies have published similar statements regarding the effect of tax cuts on federal receipts. From the Congressional Budget Office’s 2007 Budget Outlook: “The expiration of tax provisions as scheduled has a substantial impact on CBO’s projections, especially beyond 2010 when a number of revenue-reducing tax provisions enacted in the past several years are slated to expire,” the report says. “Almost all of the expiring provisions reduce revenues.”

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 tax legislation (the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less than they would have been in the absence of the legislation in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006. The committee's estimates for the effect of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 were that it would reduce otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006. The JCT makes its comparisons against the Congressional Budget Office's receipts baselines.

The projections were not off the mark. A look at the committee's estimates of total federal revenue including the effects of the 2003 tax legislation versus the actual federal receipts shows that the JCT's projections were higher than actual revenues in 2003 and 2004 and slightly lower than actual receipts in 2005......

Lower Deficit Sparks Debate Over Tax Cuts' Role click to show

Bush Ad Claims His Tax Cuts Exceed Reagan's click to show

Quote:

http://www.factcheck.org/bush_ad_cla...ts_exceed.html

Bush Ad Claims His Tax Cuts Exceed Reagan's
June 8, 2004
It says his cuts are "the largest tax relief in history." Some experts disagree.
Summary
A Bush ad set to run on cable networks starting June 7 makes a questionable claim when it lists "the largest tax relief in history" amid Bush's accomplishments. Bush's cuts are indeed historically big. But whether they are bigger than Ronald Reagan's depends on any number of assumptions. Reagan's looks larger by several measures.
Analysis
The campaign has taken a positive turn: with this ad, Bush paints himself as a bigger optimist than Kerry. The President says, "I believe in the people of America." He's responding to a June 1 Kerry ad in which Kerry says, "We're a country of optimists; we're the can-do people." The Bush ad is named "Pessimist" and the Kerry ad is called "Optimists."

The Bush ad is accurate when it states that the economy has been growing for 10 straight months, that 1.4 million jobs have been added since August (making up more than half the jobs lost after Bush took office), and that home ownership is at a record high. All that is true.

And it's also on target when it cites -- as evidence of Kerry's alleged "pessimism" -- that Kerry keeps "talking about the Great Depression." After Friday's report that the economy had gained 947,000 jobs in the past three months, the Kerry campaign issued a news release saying, "America is still in the worst job recovery since the Great Depression." Now that is looking on the dark side.

Whose is Biggest?

The one place where Bush's ad may go too far is when it claims his tax cuts are the largest -- exceeding even Ronald Reagan's historic 1981 tax cut and the cut proposed in 1963 by John F. Kennedy. Tax experts have been debating that question for some time.

Bush's cuts are clearly the largest if one looks at raw dollars alone, ignoring inflation and the size of the economy. But once those important factors are considered, Reagan's tax cut looks larger to some.

According to a paper published last July by a tax expert in Bush's own Treasury Department, Reagan's Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) clearly exceeded any one of Bush's cuts. "By every measure used here, ERTA was by far the biggest tax change (and the biggest tax cut) over the past 35 years," wrote Jerry Tempalski of the Office of Tax Analysis.

But what about all three of Bush's cuts, the cuts for individuals enacted in 2001 and 2003, and the business tax cut enacted in 2002? In raw dollars, Bush wins. Tempalski's tables show that Reagan's 1981 cut was estimated to average $111 billion per year during its first four years on the books, while Bush's three cuts average a combined total of $160.4 billion annually during the comparable four-year period.

But Bush loses when inflation is taken into account. A dollar today is worth much less than a dollar in 1981. And Reagan's cut is 12% larger than Bush's combined cuts in "real" dollars (dollars adjusted for inflation) according to Tempalski's tables, again comparing four-year averages for both tax cuts.

But wait -- Reagan's cuts never fully took effect. They were scaled back in 1982 by a tax increase that averaged $37.5 billion over its first four years. Subtract the '82 Reagan increase from the '81 Reagan cut, and the combined Bush cuts once again look bigger, even adjusted for inflation.

Hold on, though. The economy has doubled in size since 1981. According to Tempalski's tables, Reagan's cut would have amounted to 4.15% of the economy by the fourth year, and the Bush cuts total less than 1%. Reagan's cut is four times bigger than Bush's measured this way, as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Even subtracting the effect of the '82 Reagan tax hike, we calculate from Tempalski's tables that Reagan's net cut is roughly three times bigger than all of Bush's put together.

We could go on. The cuts look different depending on whether one looks at only the first-year effects, or the fourth-year effects, or the average of the first two years or the first four years. And that's just using the figures provided by one neutral expert......

Bush click to show

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/econo...udget_2-3.html
President Bush submitted his $2.23 trillion budget plan to Congress today, saying it will get the economy going again while taking care of social needs and protecting the U.S. from attack. Experts analyze the proposed budget plan.

SPENDING BLUEPRINT

February 3, 2003

MARGARET WARNER: To analyze this new budget proposal, we turn to experts from two Washington research groups. Robert Greenstein is executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and William Beach is senior fellow in economics at the Heritage Foundation. Welcome to you both.

.....MARGARET WARNER: Let me just ask you to comment on where Mr. Greenstein's comment that this is the sort of 80s redux?

WILLIAM BEACH: When tax rates were cut in the 1980s revenues went up. Spending went out the roof.

ROBERT GREENSTEIN: That's not true, that's not true.

WILLIAM BEACH: This is a very large problem which congresses have had. When Pres. Clinton signed legislation to cut the capital gains tax cuts, people in town, Bob included, thought it wouldn't raise any money. It raised an enormous amount of money.

ROBERT GREENSTEIN: That's not true either.

WILLIAM BEACH: We have a record of these kinds of reactions occurring, both in the 1960s, 1920s, 1980s, 1990s. So we don't have to take that risk any more, we know that certain things work well from a tax standpoint.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you saying, Mr. Greenstein, that tax cuts do not help stimulate economic growth, do not help create jobs, investment so forth?

ROBERT GREENSTEIN: It depends on the kind of tax cuts. But you have two effects from tax cuts. Certain kinds of well-designed tax cuts can help the economy and help jobs and growth, in and of themselves, if they're paid for. But if those tax cuts increase deficits and debt, tin creased deficits and debt reduce saving and harm the economy.

So you have to balance the two effects. The estimates of the president's plan, the tax cut enacted in 2001 from neutral observers, like the Congressional Budget Office, was no significant net effect on economic growth, which means you don't offset these big deficits that are coming.

Now, the model for me, interestingly enough, we talked about the 80s, let's look at Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan put through a big tax cut in '81 like George W. Bush did in '01. A year later, for other reasons, the economy in both cases, both presidents faced much darker fiscal situations. Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Howard Baker and David Stockman responded in '82 and thereafter by undoing some of the '81 tax cut. This president is digging the hole deeper.

MARGARET WARNER: Brief response.

WILLIAM BEACH: Well, no, the record of the 80s is the basis of the economic growth of the 90s. And we all know what that is. What President Bush is laying right now is the basis of economic growth in the next ten years. If we don't have it, Margaret, we won't be able to fix the many problems that Bob has rightly identified, Social Security, Medicare and all the issues that deal with children. We need this tax cut, we need this budget. ....

WILL THE TAX CUTS ULTIMATELY PAY FOR THEMSELVES? click to show

Quote:

http://www.cbpp.org/3-3-03tax.htm
March 3, 2003

WILL THE TAX CUTS ULTIMATELY PAY FOR THEMSELVES?
by Richard Kogan

.... * Yet another indication that the Administration does not really believe that the tax cuts will pay for themselves is found in the revenue projections in the President’s budget. The budget projects that under the President’s policies, total federal revenues will grow at a slower annual rate between 2001 and 2008 than in any comparable period over the last five decades. OMB also projects that federal income tax revenues will grow at only one-sixteenth the annual rate they grew between 1990 and 2001.

* The long-term budget forecast in the President’s budget is even more chilling. In President Bush’s first budget, OMB projected the federal budget would remain in surplus at least through 2035. A year ago, OMB projected that surpluses would return in 2005 and remain through about 2025. But this year, OMB projects no return to surplus at any time. OMB now projects that under the Administration’s policies, the budget will be in deficit every year for the next 50 years.

In short, both the analyses that the President’s Council of Economic Advisers has conducted and the budget projections that the President’s own budget office has issued are inconsistent with Administration rhetoric about the hefty revenue growth that its tax policies would generate.......

<center><img src="http://www.cbpp.org/3-3-03tax-f1.jpg"><p>.... The Lessons of the 1980s and 1990s

Nor does history support the rhetoric that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. When the large tax cuts enacted in 1981 were being debated, many of the adherents of those tax cuts contended the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Conversely, when marginal tax rates on high-income individuals were raised in 1990 and especially in 1993, the claim was made that these tax increases would damage the economy and that income tax receipts consequently would grow more slowly in the 1990s than in the 1980s. In fact, income tax revenues hardly grew at all in the 1980s (after adjustment for inflation and increases in the size of the working-age population) and grew 13 times faster in the 1990s than in the 1980s....</center>

..... Do Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves? The Historical Record

Large tax cuts were enacted in 1981, with the centerpiece of the 1981 tax cut being a large reduction in marginal tax rates. If such tax cuts really pay for themselves, income tax receipts should have grown as rapidly in the 1980s as they did in the 1990s.

Indeed, in the 1980s, supply-siders argued that the economy would grow more rapidly because of the 1981 tax cut. They contended that a lower tax rate applied to a larger economy would produce at least the same amount of revenue. Then, when marginal income tax rates at the top of the income spectrum were raised in 1990 and especially when these rates were raised further in 1993, a number of supply-side advocates insisted this would harm economic growth. Presumably, higher tax rates applied to a smaller economy would mean that income tax receipts would not grow as much in the 1990s as in the 1980s.

Yet this is not what occurred. Income tax receipts grew noticeably more slowly than usual in the 1980s, after the large cuts in individual and corporate income tax rates in 1981. And income tax collections grew much more rapidly in the 1990s than in the 1980s. The graph and table on the next page illustrate this fact.

A comparison between the 1980s and the 1990s is quite instructive. (Data for the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s are affected by several increases in payroll or excise taxes, numerous reductions in income tax rates, and uneven rates of “bracket creep” because the individual income tax was not indexed for inflation during those periods.) If economic growth — or voluntary tax compliance, another benefit that supply-side advocates claimed would occur after the large reduction in income tax rates in 1981 — would offset lower tax rates, income tax receipts should have grown in the 1980s at rates roughly approximating the historical norms. They did not. After adjusting for inflation and the increased size of the working-age population, income tax receipts grew hardly at all in the 1980s. In the 1990s, by contrast, income tax receipts grew at a pace similar to that in the 1950s and 1960s and much faster than in the 1970s or 1980s.

The table also shows current CBO and OMB projections of tax receipts in the years ahead. The OMB projections, which reflect not only the ongoing revenue losses caused by the 2001 tax cut but also the new tax cuts proposed by the President in his 2004 budget, are of particular interest. They show strikingly low rates of growth for federal revenues. Under the President’s budget, income taxes would grow at rates even lower than the very low rates of the 1980s, while total revenues would grow more slowly than in any comparable period of the last five decades. These OMB figures show that the Administration’s own official projections contradict much of its recent rhetoric about strong revenue growth under its tax policies.

<center><img src="http://www.cbpp.org/3-3-03tax-f2.jpg"></center>

.... Conclusion

The notion that tax cuts can pay, or have paid, for themselves is refuted by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers both in its analysis of the 2001 tax cut and in the Economic Report of the President. This notion also is contradicted by the abnormally low rate of revenue growth projected in the President’s budget. And it is rebutted by the long-term budget projections in OMB’s Analytical Perspectives, which show permanent deficits. Finally, history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts. Leading economists are warning that the tax cuts the Administration is proposing will lose substantial revenue and damage the nation’s long-term fiscal position. The idea that tax cuts can pay for themselves sounds too good to be true because it is too good to be true.

powerclown · 08-09-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Of course what you say is true, but that doesn't exclude the issue from consideration and us from exercising judgment in our systems of government. While "every nation on earth...has had issues of unequal wealth distribution", those nations have dealt with the issue in different ways. Those different reactions have had different effects. Shouldn't we at least be conscious of what we're doing and what effect it might have, even if we're confronting universal conditions?

What I question are the extremist viewpoints and distorted political ideologies mistakenly underwritten on the tenets of unequal income distribution. The perpetuated myth that terrorism comes from poverty, for example.

roachboy · 08-09-2007, 01:00 PM

ace:
for the time being, i defer to host's post no. 64. answer that and them maybe we'll play.

aceventura3 · 08-09-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

ace:
for the time being, i defer to host's post no. 64. answer that and them maybe we'll play.

He doesn't seem to do anything other than post raw data without making a connection to anything. I would not know where to start. Nor do I know the connection to the data he posted and comments I have posted.

I will assume I am not as smart as some of you and Host, I need the dots connected.

Willravel · 08-09-2007, 03:48 PM

I usually start by reading the "raw data" (actually apt articles).

debaser · 08-09-2007, 03:59 PM

Hugo Chavez, bread and circuses.

aceventura3 · 08-10-2007, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I usually start by reading the "raw data" (actually apt articles).

I have read lots of raw data, I have even read the data Host provided.

What I am missing is the connection between the data Host often provides and how it supports his premise or contradicts mine. When I cite data i usually pick the data that is relevant and then I try to show the relevance.

I am not a savant, my ability to comprehend is on a more base level, it seems Host can look at what appears to me to be random pieces of data and connect it all without much effort or thinking there is a need to show the connections. Most people, including me, are not at that level. If Host is like Mozart, I am like Muddy Waters.

FoolThemAll · 08-10-2007, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What I am missing is the connection between the data Host often provides and how it supports his premise or contradicts mine.

I can't speak to the raw data he posted here - or in most other places - but I do recall a point in an "outing gay conservatives" thread where he responded to me with a veritable shitload of data, none of which touched upon my argument. At least not in any way that I could see or he would point out.

So, yeah, can't speak on this particular instance... but it wouldn't be without precedent, imo, for the data to lack relevance.

roachboy · 08-10-2007, 07:45 AM

Quote:

On what basis do you support the notion that the US wants "domination", I think we want access to the oil at a far price.

ace--here's a good example of the problem i have interacting with you.

in a debate you make assumptions about who the interlocutor is and what he or she knows about and i generally am a pollyanna sort this so way assume that folk know something of the basic history of the topic being discussed.

in this case, though, i dont think that you know the outlines of the history of american foreign policy toward latin america. all i can do about this really is suggest that you read some stuff. try walter lefeber's work. he has a political stance but it is explicit so you can control for it--it is systematic and well-written and repays the reading: Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (1984, 1992)...which is a good place to get the general outlines of fp-history toward latin america as a whole, even though its focus is only on central america. he gives a good view of the dynamics that much american policy have triggered. or you could simply do a subject heading search in a library catalogue.

i hope this sounds as i mean it--a suggestion for how an actual debate could happen--and not patronizing--but seriously, there is no point in this without some expansion of the information you have to work from. so were you to read something like this (if you havent) then we could have a common starting point and maybe this sort of conversation could be productive.

your first 4 questions above to me are all predicated on you not seeming to know the outlines of the history.
i am not inclined toward potted summaries and think in this case that even if i were so inclined, i still wouldnt post one here.

summary: i dont think we have enough of a common dataset to have a coherent conversation about this. you will say "i dont understand" i will say "read a book" and things will grow snippy from there and there's no point. so if you want to pursue this, just do a bit of research so that we have a place to start. it isnt onerous.

b.
regarding your notion of "the long view"---this is a simple frame question. if you are tracking capital markets to the exclusion of other factors--even those which would be integrated into corporate self-auditing via the idea of the triple bottom line, then you are excluding so much data (if the idea is to consider economic activity and the consequences of that activity--which is among the goals in a thread like this) that no matter how extended in time your data is within that datafield, the field itself is so truncated that it does not provide you with adequate information.

c.
your statements about debt as lever of american domination: again the underlying problem here is that you dont know the history enough to enable an actual discussion to get started.

general:
it is not a problem that you dont know the history in itself--no-one is born knowing this stuff (unless you like in the area affected)--so we all have to acquire the information somehow--and we all have to read to get it--so get some better historical information.

aceventura3 · 08-10-2007, 09:12 AM

Roach,

It boils down to the base level of the issues I discuss. I try to cut through the information that has no bearing on the underlying issue. It seems that you may take this approach as an indicator that I lack a sophisticated understanding of the issue. However, to the contrary my base level questions are at the heart of the issue, necessitating directer answers rather than pseudo intellectual answers. For example if the US uses debt to dominate Latin American countries, why wouldn't you think Venezuela is trying to do the same? Why doesn't the country taking on the debt have the responsibility of its destiny? On some theoretical level the assumption is made that the US has certain diabolical motives, while a country like Venezuela doesn't. Or the assumption that the political leaders of some Latin American countries are victims of US motives and are forced to do those things that they would not normally do. Then to justify these assumptions, it seems to me that on a pseudo intellectual level strings of random data points or historical events are referenced often with no logical connections made between the information. So, you will always have the safety of saying:

Quote:

i dont think that you know the outlines of the history of american foreign policy toward latin america.

But the theoretical bottom line is that US foreign policy is based on the US doing what US leaders think is in the best interest of the US, and Latin American leaders doing the same. That as a given - I see no victims only choices being made.

Currently, Chavez is making choices affecting the future of his country, if based on his choices American dollars stop flowing into his country in the future, the blame is his. If on the other hand if American dollars continue to flow along with Asian currencies combined with his nation diversifying its economic base, he deserves the credit. If that as my premise, causes you and others difficulty or suggests that I am disingenuous...all I can say is:

Quote:

You can't spend what you ain't got, you can't lose some little girl you ain't never had - from a Muddy Waters recording

soundmotor · 08-11-2007, 06:57 AM

Hugo on term limits

Hugo on independent TV stations

Hugo on presidential powers

Hugo on the private sector

Hugo on the USA (& eventual outcome)

roachboy · 08-11-2007, 08:48 AM

....................X..................

it wasnt the finest of efforts anyway.
you aren't missing a thing.

powerclown · 08-11-2007, 09:19 AM

Whats with the thread-nazi act roachboy? Are we pms'ing again?
You're better than that.

roachboy · 08-11-2007, 09:39 AM

powerclown:

my reaction to ace here comes from a deep boredom with this forum.

i would simply prefer to be able to imagine the possibility of an actual informed debate with folk whose politics are radically different from my own.
recycling what i already think without friction is of no interest to me.
i can do that without wasting time typing.

maybe there is something of a life-span to one's engagement with this kind of thing--i'd prefer to think that's not the case--but perhaps i am wrong and there is one.

i find roachboy-in-politics to be a tedious machine--i dont know where this voice he uses came from and i--the other guy, the one pulling his strings--cant seem to get away from it. given that there is little in the way of informed discussion from folk whose politics are opposed to my own, it seems that roachboy-in-politics simply fossilizes and as that happens my own interest in him grows dim.

so this interaction with ace is perhaps just the surfacing of a more general alienation regarding the forum--and given that the issues being debated are for most of us (so far as i can tell) experience-distant, playing with them requires that one do a bit of work in order to get up to speed--and that work is done by some and not others--and it turns out that the folk who do that work occupy positions close enough to my own that there are not a whole lot of things to debate over and those who i would hope would array themselves in opposition simply do not have control over enough information for this to be much fun.

so perhaps in the end it is my problem, i dont know. it probably is.

i dont see how to reverse this process. the only significance of this thread (at this point, in my view) is that it make the underlying issue i have with the politics forum explicit. but i retain a sentimental attachment to the forum as it is how i became interested in tfp. perhaps it is this sentimental attachment as its wires get crossed with this other pattern that generates the snippiness here.

dont know.
really...

powerclown · 08-11-2007, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

powerclown:

my reaction to ace here comes from a deep boredom with this forum.

i would simply prefer to be able to imagine the possibility of an actual informed debate with folk whose politics are radically different from my own.
recycling what i already think without friction is of no interest to me.
i can do that without wasting time typing.

maybe there is something of a life-span to one's engagement with this kind of thing--i'd prefer to think that's not the case--but perhaps i am wrong and there is one.

i find roachboy-in-politics to be a tedious machine--i dont know where this voice he uses came from and i--the other guy, the one pulling his strings--cant seem to get away from it. given that there is little in the way of informed discussion from folk whose politics are opposed to my own, it seems that roachboy-in-politics simply fossilizes and as that happens my own interest in him grows dim.

so this interaction with ace is perhaps just the surfacing of a more general alienation regarding the forum--and given that the issues being debated are for most of us (so far as i can tell) experience-distant, playing with them requires that one do a bit of work in order to get up to speed--and that work is done by some and not others--and it turns out that the folk who do that work occupy positions close enough to my own that there are not a whole lot of things to debate over and those who i would hope would array themselves in opposition simply do not have control over enough information for this to be much fun.

so perhaps in the end it is my problem, i dont know. it probably is.

i dont see how to reverse this process. the only significance of this thread (at this point, in my view) is that it make the underlying issue i have with the politics forum explicit. but i retain a sentimental attachment to the forum as it is how i became interested in tfp. perhaps it is this sentimental attachment as its wires get crossed with this other pattern that generates the snippiness here.

dont know.
really...

Excuses, excuses...

ubertuber · 08-11-2007, 02:23 PM

Give me a break powerclown. You asked a snippy question and got a sincere answer. If "excuses, excuses" is the best you've got, why bother posting?

aceventura3 · 08-13-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

powerclown:

my reaction to ace here comes from a deep boredom with this forum.

What reaction are you talking about? And why are you implying that you are a victim of something? Most of my posts on this subject have been fact based, non-emotional, addressing core issues. And, you find that problematic and indicative a a bigger problem with this forum?

08-08-2007, 09:46 AM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so wait, ace: do your posts mean that you side with the economic elite in venezuela and that you support their particular versions of class warfare because you know what they are, how they unfold and what they mean? or is this a simple exercise in a priori playing around, one that is not based on anything like information about venezeula, its class structure, its politics, its history? are you of the conservative school that thinks the only socio-historical information that matters is that which is coincident with neoliberal ideology? it seems that you are because when you strip away the pseudo-data, you arguments come down to neoliberalism uber alles--no alternatives are acceptable. you dont need to understand what these alternatives might be because you have decided a priori that they do not work. on what basis? it certainly cannot be--CANNOT be--on the basis of anything approaching a close look at the damage wrought by neoliberalism in south america. it cannot be based on any understanding of the history of us-latin american relations. it cannot be based on any coherent information about venezuela, and it obviously does not require a coherent understanding of either hugo chavez or his politics or of how his political address aspects of class war in his country. given that it seems you are engaging in the same a priori game as powerclown or dk, i wonder why you bother with the data that you gather. but even more, i wonder if at some point in the past you were rcp. your use of the rcp paper was funny. do you have a bit of mao in your past? plot summary: it seems to me that what guyy said above is accurate re. powerclown and dk...and it seems to me that you, ace, present a more data-centered version of the same thing. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-08-2007 at 09:51 AM..

08-08-2007, 05:22 PM	#50 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you ducked the question, powerclown. how exactly is chavez communist? why is he not more a socialist? do you understand that there is a distinction? as for your assurance that you can foresee the political future, let me tell you that the reason things appear so clear is because you dont know what you are talking about. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-09-2007, 07:44 AM	#55 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what the hell is "the liberal mind" ace? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-09-2007, 08:12 AM	#57 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I'd say it's the plank in your eye. I'm not trying to single you out, Ace, but in my experience, both sides think the other is illogical and full of contradictions. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

08-09-2007, 01:00 PM	#66 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ace: for the time being, i defer to host's post no. 64. answer that and them maybe we'll play. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-08-2007, 10:10 AM	#44 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Wait, is this the same logic by which we attribute the economic growth in the Clinton Administration to the Bush and Reagan Administrations?

08-08-2007, 05:54 PM	#51 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Like a wet fart morphing into a bolus; there is socialism then communism.

08-09-2007, 03:48 PM	#68 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I usually start by reading the "raw data" (actually apt articles).

08-09-2007, 03:59 PM	#69 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Hugo Chavez, bread and circuses. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

08-11-2007, 06:57 AM	#74 (permalink)
soundmotor Crazy Location: Near & There	Hugo, another latin dictator emerges...... Hugo on term limits Hugo on independent TV stations Hugo on presidential powers Hugo on the private sector Hugo on the USA (& eventual outcome)

08-11-2007, 08:48 AM	#75 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	....................X.................. it wasnt the finest of efforts anyway. you aren't missing a thing. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-11-2007 at 11:23 AM.. Reason: blech.

08-11-2007, 09:19 AM	#76 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Whats with the thread-nazi act roachboy? Are we pms'ing again? You're better than that.

08-11-2007, 09:39 AM	#77 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	powerclown: my reaction to ace here comes from a deep boredom with this forum. i would simply prefer to be able to imagine the possibility of an actual informed debate with folk whose politics are radically different from my own. recycling what i already think without friction is of no interest to me. i can do that without wasting time typing. maybe there is something of a life-span to one's engagement with this kind of thing--i'd prefer to think that's not the case--but perhaps i am wrong and there is one. i find roachboy-in-politics to be a tedious machine--i dont know where this voice he uses came from and i--the other guy, the one pulling his strings--cant seem to get away from it. given that there is little in the way of informed discussion from folk whose politics are opposed to my own, it seems that roachboy-in-politics simply fossilizes and as that happens my own interest in him grows dim. so this interaction with ace is perhaps just the surfacing of a more general alienation regarding the forum--and given that the issues being debated are for most of us (so far as i can tell) experience-distant, playing with them requires that one do a bit of work in order to get up to speed--and that work is done by some and not others--and it turns out that the folk who do that work occupy positions close enough to my own that there are not a whole lot of things to debate over and those who i would hope would array themselves in opposition simply do not have control over enough information for this to be much fun. so perhaps in the end it is my problem, i dont know. it probably is. i dont see how to reverse this process. the only significance of this thread (at this point, in my view) is that it make the underlying issue i have with the politics forum explicit. but i retain a sentimental attachment to the forum as it is how i became interested in tfp. perhaps it is this sentimental attachment as its wires get crossed with this other pattern that generates the snippiness here. dont know. really... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-11-2007 at 09:44 AM..

08-11-2007, 02:23 PM	#79 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Give me a break powerclown. You asked a snippy question and got a sincere answer. If "excuses, excuses" is the best you've got, why bother posting? __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam