Hugo Chavez
 

Why do conservatives in the US hate Hugo so much? I just read most of the article on Wiki and I didn't read anything that seemed to make him a threat. He was democratically elected multiple times. The only reason I can see is that he is anti-Bush. I fail to see how Hugo is worse than the leaders of many of African and Arab nations (For example Saudi Arabia). Could some of the people who think this guy is so bad that we shouldn't even talk to him explain to me why you hate him so much?

They hate him because *drumroll* ......oil. That's it.

He took back the oil fields and gave it to his people the profits in the form of social programs, and even offered to give us some during Katrina. It's hard to have an oil oligopoly when you have some so called dictator giving it away for free. It really hurts the profits.

It's just like the reason we actually went into Iraq. It wasn't to get the oil for people to use, rather it was so no one could use it.

The common neo-con only hates him because of the barking orders that limbaugh, hannity and the like get from the top. They don't actually know the real reason they are to hate him though.

It is mainly oil now, but the fact that he is a freedom fighter scares the bujesus out of neocons. Basck when he was a military officer, he decided to hold a coup to overtrow then President Perez because he was corupt and was repressive. Our own corupt repressive politicians prefer the easy to control freedom fighter, like the Mujahadin back in the 80s (I have no idea how they thought that wouldn't come back to bite us in the ass, btw). Chavez survived a coup that was likely incited and supported by the CIA.

Wasn’t this the man that called Bush the devil at the UN or something similar to that? I don’t particularly know enough about Chavez to really make up my mind as to whether I like him or not. I guess I’m leaning more towards the latter. He seems like a demagogue. Shouldn’t politicians use the power of speech to inspire thought and not instill hate, to reconcile and not to divide? Shouldn’t they move people to action using irrefutable logic instead of pandering to base fears? I don’t think he’s the type of politician who I would like, but then again I can’t really think of any American politician who meets my criteria either. Unless, we can name those that have probably been glorified by the passage of time. At the very least if he’s the guy that called Bush the devil he doesn’t have much political tact. You asked a pretty direct question sorry to go on somewhat of a tangent there.

chavez is yet another in a long line of latin american leaders who have attempted to stand up to the united states and have brought down the usual range of hostility on themselves as a result. of course, things are more complicated because the us vs. the people of latin america thing is more complicated--so the fact that you see ferocious opposition to chavez amongst upper-class conservative-to-fascist (depending on your information and your viewpoint) types is not surprising. a cynical fellow might see in chavez's use of the united states a kind of cheap political move--but that cynical fellow would have to be completely oblivious to the very real consequences of the present class arrangement--which is modelled on (directly and indirectly, that is materially in some ways, ideologically on others) the american colonial format--the types of class alliance that typically constitute the social expression of american domination on the one hand, and those which oppose it on the other.

then there's the oil. even if chavez didnt fit into a longer historical continuum, his actions re. the oil industry would engender a certain sustained snippiness amongst the american economic oligarchy--one which runs quite a bit beyond the (ever shrinking) cadre of neo-cons, who distinguish themselves in this respect mostly because of the baldness of their justifiations for us colonialism in latin america. i mean, it's not as if the united states has only started seeing in oil streams a "vital national interest" important enough for lots of poorer folk to die over with george w bush---who, as much as i detest him, remains in some ways at least a simple expression of the logic of american foreign policy as a whole. you really should read some history of the us-latin american relation that extends back before 2000, if you havent.

btw here's a great film about the coup attempt, shot in situ by an irish tv crew:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363510/

well worth watching and jammed with far more information than any series of posts could possibly give re chavez and the class dynamics in venezuela (well, mostly caracas and a few outlying areas)

I, personally, have nothing against him and see nothing wrong with any of his policies. If he's made any mistake, it was not kowtowing to Bush.

I agree with this and this is one of my main reasons I dislike Bush and Gulianni.

I've highlighted in bold characters, the motivation behind our government "leaders" and some religious broadcasting "personalities" efforts to disparage Mr, Chavez, what he has been doing in Venezuela, and why he has risen to, and maintained authority in his country.

It's the "dirty li'l secret" that the US State Department report, below, let slip out, but that our president, does not want us to pay attention to....heaven fucking forbid, we should ever WTFU, and tell our president to STFU !



In the preceding box, I only posted 2004 and newer GINI stats.....

It's simple, folks....we can remain disconnected, or take a cue from the common people in Venezuela and the man who they have elected to lead them....or we can continue to muddle along, under the "funnel" that makes most of us poorer every year, under the leadership of someone like the propagandist, GW Bush, a man as disconnected and irrational as the top one percent of us....the only constituency who he truly represents....a constituency in Venezuela who Mr. Chavez is determined to make fend for itself....

I guess nobody has a problem with him ramrodding the idea of changing electoral policies in his country to keep him in power for years beyond what would normally be consitutional?

It's not like he's lied to go to war or is spying on the population.

I remember there being an apropos parable in Matthew 7:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Hugo Chavez is a saint compared to our difficulties. Chavez has the potential to bring about real, independent, positive change in Latin America. Yes, there is a risk involved in the situation, but so far there's no indication of abuse.

Chavez is bringing about changes that our own State Dept. documents and shares with us....from it's website:

....If Chavez keeps on at the rate he is going, they'll be no "poor" and "extremely poor" people living in Venezuela...and income there will be distributed more equally than it is in the US....I'm betting that our State Dept. will be reporting that stat....by next spring....but if there is a "liberal" media, in the US, why aren't they touting the dramatic economic improvements that our own US State Dept. is reporting are occurring, these last three years, in Chavez's Venezuela?

Yes, his actions go against the political-economic philosophies of US republicans and libertarians.....but wholesale destruction of the bill of rights is happening now in the US, but the bottom 150 million are not experiencing a more equitable distribution of income, or of wealth, here....are they?

Chavez, IMO, has taken measures that have already, and will continue to save large numbers of potentially lost lives that stemmed from the catalyst of extreme poverty and the desperation that such poverty triggers in people who arrive at a place where they feel that they have nothing left to lose....
...the man is bringing about needed changes, peacefully.

If there is no economic justice, is the justice that exists without it, relevant?

oh no, he's only attacked groups opposing him, thrown out capitalist ventures, and is pursuing a 'benevolent' (I use that term very loosely)dictatorship.


at the risk of bringing the thread to a godwins end, I seem to recall that hitler was in the same position of ideals....at least until he reached that position of ultimate power.

Host, the day the voters realize that they can vote themselves money from the coffers of the wealthy, is the day that democracy dies. Chavez knows this and is exploiting it to full advantage over his 'people' in order to remain in power. Socialism fails because it destroys personal freedom in pursuit of an economic balance, or as you term it, wealth redistribution. This is nothing more than politically correct words for legalized theft by a government.

...a comparison of the "numbers"...France vs. the US, and the CIA's own critique of the wealth distribution in the US, indicates a profound contradiction between what you believe, and what is happening in the economies of the social democracies in western Europe, vs. in the US today.
While the numbers and trends in the US... poverty rate, income/wealth distribution, declining fixed investment rates, trade deficit, indicate a direction towards crisis.....

....France seems stable economically, with numbers in the four categories described above, that the US could only hope to achieve....some day.....
...and the unemployed in France are buoyed by a social "safety net" that is the envy of the working poor in the US.

The US political/economic "model" seems to have failed 80 percent of the population, by the CIA report's own admission, and this is backed by the numbers. What do you offer to support the last part of your post?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...s/fr.html#Econ

.....France's leaders remain committed to a capitalism in which they maintain social equity by means of laws, tax policies, and social spending that reduce income disparity and the impact of free markets on public health and welfare. The government in 2006 focused on introducing measures that attempt to boost employment through increased labor market flexibility; however, the population has remained opposed to labor reforms, hampering the government's ability to revitalize the economy. The tax burden remains one of the highest in Europe (nearly 50% of GDP in 2005). The lingering economic slowdown and inflexible budget items probably pushed the budget deficit above the eurozone's 3%-of-GDP limit in 2006; unemployment hovers near 9%. With at least 75 million foreign tourists per year, France is the most visited country in the world and maintains the third largest income in the world from tourism.....

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...s/us.html#Econ

.....The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, <h3>fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.....</h3>
...US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products.....
....Long-term problems include <h3>inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.</h3> The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $750 billion in 2006.


Unemployment rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
France= 8.7% (December 2006 est.) US= 4.8%
Population below poverty line:
Definition Field Listing
France= 6.2% (2004) US= 12%
Household income or consumption by percentage share:
Definition Field Listing
France= lowest 10%: 3% US= 1.8%
France= highest 10%: 24.8% (2004) US= 30.5% (1997)

Distribution of family income - Gini index:
Definition Field Listing
France= 26.7 (2002) US= 45

Investment (gross fixed):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
France= 20% of GDP (2006 est.) US= 16.6%

Public debt:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
France= 64.7% of GDP (2006 est.) US= 64.7%

Imports:

France= $529.1 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.) US= $1.869 trillion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Current account
balance:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
France= -$38 billion (2006 est.) US= -$862.3 billion (2006 est.)
Exports:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
France= $490 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.) US= $1.024 trillion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Reserves of foreign exchange and gold:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
France= $98.54 billion (2006 est.) US= $69.19 billion (August 2006 est.)
Debt - external:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
France= $3.461 trillion (30 June 2006) US= $10.04 trillion (30 June 2006 est.)

nice host...

i was going to post something, but it's better to wait for a response, i think.

Well first off, throwing out American capitalists is a good thing in Latin America. Read John Perkins' 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman'. As for attacking groups that oppose him, look at the specific cases. They're a bit more complex than is portreyed in American media (when it's occasionally mentioned).
Yes, but we've not actually seen any misuse of power. In the case of Bush we have war and spying. Even if Hugo is on the same road as Bush and eventually Hitler, he's not anywhere near as far along the path.
You should speak to Native American tribesmen about how life was several hundred years ago. Socialism was perfect for Native Americans on the whole because they placed more value on the whole than the individual, and until a civilization (that happened to have developed in an area with mine-able metals closer to the surface and beasts of labor that are easily trained, read "Guns Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond for more information) came to destroy them with better technology and capitalism, they were a thriving set of civilizations. Socialism succeeded, and each of the tribesmen (tribespeople) were able to live free and fulfilling lives despite working for the whole first and the individual second.

It's harder to prevent segregation in a capitalist society. It's harder to prevent corporations in a capitalist society. It's harder to have low unemployment in a capitalist society. It's impossible to avoid having low wages, a large amount of poor people, and even starvation in a capitalist society. It's almost impossible to prevent corporations from becoming entities only centered around profit in a capitalist society. In all of these areas and many more, socialism manages to succeed.

dk he is not a dictator. He has been elected multiple times and has won each election. Those elections were certified by international bodies as fair. The only thing that i've read he has done that i don't agree with is the censuring of some news organizations. Of course he believes these news organizations took part in a coup which was likely privately supported by the US.

What I don't understand is why you don't rail against Saudi Arabia for their dictatorship and their censorship....

rekna: you really ought to have a look at the film i linked above, "the revolution will not be televised" to see what exactly lay behind chavez's move. i dont agree with it in principle, but in this case, i understand it.
personally, i think dk's problem with chavez is a simple reaction to the word socialism, which for him is bad bad bad--vague on what it means, but quite sure it is bad bad bad. but i'll let him speak for himself.

On many issues I am conservative and definitely libertarian regarding my views on property rights and I don't hate Chavez - particularly since I don't live in Venezuela. I speculate that he will lead his country to ruin in spite of the valuable oil resources.

Here is some history:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108140.html

Chavez has an interesting problem. He is highly critical of the US but his country has been in bed with the US for many years. Without the US market, tax payers and past private sector US investment in the Venezuelan oil industry, I doubt the country would be in a position to allow Chavez to do and to say the things he says. Chavez is desperately seeking new, non-US, markets for his oil. His problem is in how to deliver the oil at a competitive price. His country will need to invest billions to do this. Will Chavez's government be able to do this without private investment? I guess time will tell.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51609

The World Economic Forum produced a good report on the economic conditions if countries in Central and South America, here is some of what they wrote about Venezuela:

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Co...nchmarking.pdf

Looks like I am becoming the anti-Host with so much data, but here is more:

http://www.rwor.org/a/094/chavez-en.html
It will be interesting to revisit this data in a few years.

a response to what? proof that the government legally steals so they can give unearned wages to people that won't get a job or learn to make something?

why?

so all actions are fine, right up until the point where he misuses his power? do you not remember history?

I'm part native american and know the cherokee history fairly well, so lets try understanding WHY socialism works in a tribal setting but not in large urban population centers.

not a single one of these ills of capitalism wouldn't also be solved by deregulating the millions of trade and commerce policies and it would allow people to keep what they make instead of giving up part of their labor rewards to deadbeats and idiots who can't or won't find a job.

probably because this is about hugo chavez and latin america, not saudi arabia.

Because the US's economic stance with Latin America is one of extortion and control, as we've seen over the past 40+ years.
He's not broken any rules. As you might remind me, you can't arrest someone for buying guns.
But there were tribes as large as thousands of people, and in Central America there were cities of tens to possibly hundreds of thousands of people. I'm not Cherokee, but I love the history of Native Americans.
That's not how it works. I suppose you're one of those people who thinks that everyone who makes minimum wage is lazy. You assume that a good worker won't get laid off. You assume that the harder you work, the more you make. That's the failing of the capitalist mindset. It exists in a vacuum.

You're okay with people starving or not being able to afford a home? You're okay with the 45,000,000 Americans without health insurance?
Wow, that's quite a non-answer.

Then you'd know that these larger tribes broke themselves up in to....cells, for lack of a better term. Smaller populations are built for a 'group' effort.

You assume way too much. minimum wage earning doesn't mean one is lazy. There are many reasons why someone may be earning minimum wage, but I include laziness as one of them. I'm a damn good worker, I've been laid off. It happens when you work for someone else. Working for someone else puts you at THEIR discretion of whether or not they want you to work for them anymore. Just like you have the right to decide who you let in your house or not, a company owner has the right to decide who works for him or not.

I'm not ok with the government taking 18% of my money to help someone else, who makes less than I do, pay rent, get medical/dental insurance, pay for higher education, and/or get free groceries when I haven't had medical insurance for 13 years, my wife needs a heart transplant, the only working 4 wheeled vehicle I have has no AC, I can't afford my own fricking home, and I eat ramen noodles and hot dogs for lunch at work because it's cheaper than mcdonalds.

it's the most appropriate answer anyone else has ever given in this thread.

Why not larger? Leaving aside for the moment that our planet is overpopulated by our species, why can't the socialist structure be implemented on a city-state or even nation scale? Obviously, the Russians botched it from the get go, so I don't think we've seen a modern socialist nation... and yet here you are saying conclusively that they fail.
Those are the assumptions of capitalism. You're a damn good worker, but you're laid off. That goes against the idea that capitalism rewards hard work. Capitalism rewards selfishness and greed.
Socialism isn't the government taking 18% to help someone else. Socialism is the government taking 18% to help everyone including you. Can you imagine paying something like $80 a month for full medical coverage with no copay? That's a system everyone, including you, could use in a socialist system of health care. You already use it with police and fire coverage. I wonder, if you could withhold the money you pay to the PD and Fire Department, would you? Would you be financially responsible for someone burning to death?

The funny thing is, the system you describe above is capitalist. You'd have enough for real food in a socialist system. If you didn't have enough, you'd get it for free while you worked out a way to find more income. Also, your wife would get a free heart transplant. 100% free. And the doctors would be just as good as any doctors in a capitalist system, except there would be less red tape to get procedures done, so you'd get the surgery without having to sell it to your doctor, who has to sell it to a board, who eventually has to sell it to someone who signs the checks.
It's patting yourself on the back.

smaller groups necessitate the dependancy of all to survive. Everyone has to do their fair share for the entire group to progress. At a certain point in population rise, you lose that 'accountability' to the group and it is at that point that socialism fails.

It's not an assumption at all. If I choose to sell my labor to someone else, I get rewarded, but there is no social contract for that person to provide for me the rest of their life.

[QUOTE=willravel]Socialism isn't the government taking 18% to help someone else. Socialism is the government taking 18% to help everyone including you.[QUOTE]not even close. In order for the government to provide for those that can least afford it, it needs to have guidelines and policies to determine a point where someone makes more than is necessary and is not qualified for that help. Do you see the federal government helping someone with medical insurance who makes 52k a year? or 152k a year? is that 18% helping them?

not sure i get this. you're tieing city municipal costs with medical insurance?

someone needs to take the blinders off and pull their head out of the sand. A free transplant? how does that get paid for?

Morality necessitates everyone possible survive. It is immorality and selfishness that takes over and that only happens because of the level of the accumulation of power being unchecked. If a society knew it was growing fast and that the free market was going to cause problems down the road (ex: power and fuel companies), they could put in place proper regulation so that they can't become powerful enough to effect the social or political development of a society. That accountability is what's necessary to live in a safe and sound society.
But in capitalism, one would be rewarded for hard work.
[QUOTE=dksuddeth][QUOTE=willravel]Socialism isn't the government taking 18% to help someone else. Socialism is the government taking 18% to help everyone including you.It's not help, it's a whole national health organization. The medical organization, funded by taxes and other public revenue, would be by everyone, for everyone. If you are broke, you still pay taxes. If you're a billionaire, you still pay taxes. Everyone pays their share and absolutely everyone gets covered. Just like police and fire coverage. You don't have to pay for fireman insurance. They show up because they're funded by our government. You don't have toi worry about paying a premium to get second story coverage, and you don't have to worry about being denied.
You brought up your hypothetical wife needing surgery. It's just like NHS. There is a government run and funded program that provides health services.
The same way a firetruck gets paid for. The same way a police station gets paid for. The same way traffic lights get paid for. The same way sidewalks get paid for.

Nothing too remarkable here unfortunately. Another corrupt and ignorant tinpot marxist dictator well on his way to ruining another perfectly good latin american country. Its a good thing for Chavez (for now anyway) that his working class constituency is ignorant of the economics of absolute control over the economics of free enterprise, and bemused and distracted by his anti-american yammering. Perhaps they'll have a change of heart once he starts killing off large chunks of them for "behavior counter to the health and well-being of the State and Dear Leader". Here we go again.

It's a good thing he wasn't tricked by his community college economics professor into thinking the free market economy is perfect.

Nothing is perfect in this world - communism even less so than democracy because it fails to recognize the de facto inequality of people and their skillsets. Not everone can be a brilliant architect, surgeon or writer. Not everyone can be a brilliant janitor, dishwasher or meat cutter. Sit back and ponder for a moment how absurd, destructive and counter-productive it is for one single solitary person to control every aspect of a country and the lives of millions of its citizens. Communism is a politically suicidal cult, based on illusion and irrationality. A group (herd, pride, pod?) of chimpanzees might make for a more benevolent and effective form of leadership.

Study Communism first. Doctors made more than janitors. Janitors could afford homes, though. Doctors had hundreds of thousands instead of millions. That's socialism, really. Work is rewarded, but, in addition to work being rewarded, the society works for the society.

The modern day version of socialism/communism espoused from the left is more a form of swashbuckling political protest and expression of class envy than an insightful endorsement of an effective form of governance imo. Can anyone seriously believe that Chavez's Venezuela is a society on the rise? If I were a Venezuelan, I'd buy all the gold and precious stones I could get my hands on and leave the country ASAP. The USS Chavez is on borrowed time and headed straight for disaster. And guess who they'll be asking for help once they sink?

It's hard to call it class-ism, though, because a great deal of socialists in the US are living very comfortably. I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel it's the responsibility of the fortunate to help the less fortunate. I'm not suggesting doctors and janitors each make $65k a year. I'm just saying that no one in my country should ever starve. No one in my country should ever have to live on the street. No one in my country should be turned away from a hospital. It's about providing basic needs for everyone. I am friends with many homeless people downtown and I do everything I can to help them.
You're right. They'll dip into the IMF or world bank for money. Right after the CIA assassinates their president. That's how this system works. If they don't play ball, they're killed and replaced.

I agree in theory, but such hardship has been around since the dawn of mankind. Millions of years later and surprise, life can sometimes still be filled with pain and misery. It seems to me though that the best way to address these issues as a governing body is to give one's people - people of vastly differing mindsets and skillsets - the maximum possible amount of freedom, incentive and opportunity to avoid said hardship, to give them the tools and let them take it from there let the chips fall where they may. Communism/socialism deliberately *minimizes* freedom, incentive and opportunity, imo.

I'm not so sure about the loss of freedom. Native Americans were free to do what they wanted, they just understood that they had a responsibility to their family, their community, and their tribe. It's about integrating responsibility into freedom.

Incentive doesn't have to be based in greed, also. Can you imagine a society where the incentive to work is pride in their contribution to society?

As for opportunity, I'm starting to build a De Palma generator (aka 'n machine') in my garage. If I succeed, I won't be able to patent it. I won't be able to sell it. I could even run the risk of being the victim of a smear campaign. Why? The oil industry, a thriving part of the free market, would view me as a threat. It's in their best interest to stop any source of energy that won't mean high profits in their pockets.

...hey powerclown...take a peek at the CIA Factbook numbers I <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2288410&postcount=13">posted</a> on this thread that compare France to the US. The numbers clearly show that it is the US that is operating an unsustainable economic and monetary "system"...not Venezuela, and not France.... and you're going to go live through what is going to happen next, with me providing commentary, as we "unwind" into crisis, if you continue to participate, or even lurk around here.

Today, it's mortgage liquidity:
Consider the last two charts displayed in the preceding quote box....and tell us where the liquidity will come from to replace the funds that flowed to "buyers" who drove up housing prices, enabling years of free mortgage equity extractions from "serial re-fies" that were spent "rolling up" existing auto and credit card debt into instant new, higher debt mortgages....since housing prices could only go up.... the "MEW" produced "clean slates" that allowed newly zeroed credit card balances to be run up again, and the trading in of the two year old SUV, and the new debt disappeared in the annual "refi...."

Here's the first phase....the tip of the iceberg of the "BUST" of the superior US capitalistic economy, the one that drives the hubris and arrogance that I see emanating from your posted opinions....:
....and don't forget about these other signs of an economy "out of order", each one the sign of a potential catastrophe that was not mitigated, even with the advantage of the ongoing unprecedented speculative bubble in residential real estate in the US:


.....the decline of the dollar vs. the euro:
<center><img src="http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/5y?usdeur=x"><p> .... and the dollar vs. gold: <p><img src="http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/gold-pf.gif"><p> ...and the US Trade Deficit:<br><img src="http://www.epi.org/images/intlpic20070213.gif"></center>

....odds are that the US currency purchasing power will decline to a point, conceivably as suddenly as the mortgage market has imploded...where we in the US will be begging Chavez to lend us some oil, as we appeal to France for help in refinancing our trade debt.....and I didn't even mention the negative impact of the jump in US treasury debt....from $5.7 trillion in )Oct., 2000, to $8.8 trillion, today....

There is nothing hypothetical about her needing surgery.

Here is a guy who publicly appealed (demanded ?) for a political solution to exactly the same challenge you and your wife are facing....please watch it, it is brief but compelling:

I appeal to you to consider that you and your family did not come into the socio-politcal-economic "status quo" in the US, when it began...you came into it in the middle...and there is much inequality and injustice that you seem to discount "out of principle". It is not as clear cut as you seem to make it all, in order to arrive at your conclusion that government is "taking" what "rightfully belongs" to someone else....

Does the money that Bush's uncle William obtained via Iraq war profits....sourced from "our tax dollars", for example....really all "belong" to him? How about the profits that a housing developer, "makes"...after he puts a deposit on a tract of land, pays a local real estate lawyer who plays golf with his ole college room mate...the head of the local zoning board....to represent him in a rezoning application that would permit a high density housing development that allows the developer to build and sell double the number of units on the speculative tract that he has the deposit on to buy....slapping up the units, selling them at inflated prices "juiced" by the subprime lending scheme sanctioned by the Fed and congress....and then, moving on to his next project, leaving a community to cope with the crowded roads and expense of infrastructure improvements...schools...libraries...sewage and water collection, distribution, and treatment, police and fire protection, etc., etc., while the developer parlays his profits into two new projects..... Is it really HIS profits, DK....all of it???

Can you put a price on what the folks making present profits on the land sales of these former owners, owe the descendants of the former owners?
Within a decade after the above events, thousands were rounded up by the US military and driven in a forced march during winter....known as the "Trail of Tears"...off their lands which the Supreme Court had ruled were theirs....to reservations in Oklahoma, a march that killed many of the yourngest, oldest and infirm....

What should the compensation be for that lawbreaking and inhmanity? What is the worth of your former US military service? Shouldn't it assure you, and your wife, equal access to healthcare....the access our society affords to those in prison or to those receiving medicaid benefits?

Can you not consider that, although it is not possible to right all wrongs, a society can at least experience and tolerate the leveraging of the numbers of it's majority to mandate the provision of a minimum and sustaining level of support....of quality of life, by levying a progressive and inheritance tax on the wealthiest...the most privileged....well connected, as compensation and in fairness, for examples like I described above? If the result is that those less fortunate, less "connected", less healthy, are treated at least as well as prisoners, or as those impoverished enough to qualify for medicaid...without experiencing the indignity of seeking church or other private charity, that the society occupied by all, is over a higher, more civilized, fairer one....for all to live and to try to make a success in....?

....a society and political/economic system....more like they all enjoy, in France, than like the one you and your family )and me and mine...are struggling to survive in? Read my posted article about the thousands of millionaires in Palo Alto.....their concerns, attitudes, needs, spending interest snd priorities...don't they seem trivial compared to the challenges you face?
Their circumstances and their wealth and wastefulness are only "none of your business", if you think that way...they didn't accumulate "their money", in a vacuum.....some were lucky....some were recipients of dilutive stock options that negativel affected the investments made by the administrator of your pension fund..... well...hopefully you get the idea.

I'm sorry she needs surgery. I hope you were being hypothetical in that you don't have medical insurance.

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Indicators.png

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

It looks as if everything started doing better in 2003, when Chavez started all of his social and economic campaigns. I think the numbers speak for themselves, he's clearly a good leader. I think the real question revolves around what he could do with the slowly amassing power he has.

I do have concerns about the anti-Chavez demonstrators and the Venezuelan National Guard, but so many reports are coming from really good journalists about CIA interference that I can't automatically take the side of the demonstrators (which I normally would, honestly). It's likely that the CIA is instigating, arming, and possibly even asserting some level of control over these protests, making them artificial in some way.

Freedom of the press is another big problem in Venezuela, but it starts to move into the same territory. Free press means free from the control Venezuelan government or any other interested group. The opposition force in 2002 (which has been connected by several reliable sources to the CIA) took control over quite a bit of air time, and the president reacted. Again, this is tough. The opposition force essentially was stymieing free speech just as the president had to in response. By my understanding, there is an article in the Venezuelan Constitution which puts a condition on free press, requiring the speech to be truthful and impartial. Venezuela doesn't have the same free speech and press rights as, say, the US Constitution, so you have to bear that in mind.

Yes, indeedy. Was it Adam Smith or David Ricardo who first came up with that old chestnut "from each according to ability, to each according to need"? Friedman or Hayek or somebody? No matter, what better expression of the Spirit of Capitalism!

As to the issue of Perfection, we are constantly reminded here and elsewhere that the products of the market's invisible hands are perfect. That's why we are supposed to let the Market do its will. Right?

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 my experience, if you're a conservative, you don't know what "communist" or "socialist" mean. That's the simple reality. Before it was PC and DK, it was Ustwo and Matthew. As a socialist, I find it really curious that people think that communism = fascism or socialism = fascism. They really stand in stark contrast in pure form. It's like saying democracy = fascism just because of what Bush is doing.

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.

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.

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.


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

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

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.

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.

[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?


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.

[QUOTE=guyy]The state.gov site shows a statistic that, before Nov, 2003:
....and powerclown and ace post that "the bad people", are the ones who have brought about this transformation:
....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....

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?

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.

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

Ah, yes. That would explain Communist Britain. :orly:

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?

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.


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.

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?

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.

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

Ah, Uber liked post #10!

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.:confused:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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

Hugo Chavez, bread and circuses.

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.:thumbsup:

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.

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.

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: 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:

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)

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

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

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

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...

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?

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?

no ace.
i am not the victim of anything.
i simply described my attitude toward the politics forum as a whole.
that's it.