Hugo Chavez - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 08-06-2007, 02:26 PM

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?

samcol · 08-06-2007, 02:53 PM

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.

Willravel · 08-06-2007, 02:59 PM

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.

albania · 08-06-2007, 03:54 PM

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.

roachboy · 08-06-2007, 05:00 PM

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)

Infinite_Loser · 08-06-2007, 07:35 PM

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.

Rekna · 08-06-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by albania

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

host · 08-06-2007, 08:20 PM

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 !

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/v/57234.htm
Venezuela (11/05)

For the most current version of this Note, see Background Notes A-Z.

....ECONOMY

....Central Bank-held international reserves increased from U.S.$21.39 billion in January to U.S. $23.91 billion in November 2004, after growing U.S. $6.6 billion in 2003. There are three primary reasons that reserves did not increase more, even though oil prices averaged about $6.50 (25%) more per barrel in 2004 than in 2003. State oil corporation PDVSA bought back U.S. $2.5 billion in external debt in August 2004; CADIVI was on track to liquidate more than U.S. $12 billion in 2004 (approximately 2.7 times as much as in 2003); and the government diverted, amid great controversy, at least U.S. $2.0 billion to a new Social Development Fund run by PDVSA.

Venezuelan sovereign debt, both internal and external, has been increasing, but in 2004 the government succeeded in extending its debt profile and reducing near-term debt service. While Venezuela’s debt/GDP ratio is low by Latin American standards, it has increased in recent years. Venezuela’s Emerging Markets Bond Index investment risk rating, at 398 basis points, dropped somewhat over 2004, but remained higher than all countries in the region except Argentina.

There is considerable income inequality. The Gini coefficient was 0.618 during 2003. According to private sources, the percentages of poor and extremely poor among Venezuelan population were 74.6% and 39.3%, respectively, in 2003. These high ratios are due primarily to lower real wages earned by employees, and high rates of un- and underemployment......

http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/v/73479.htm

Venezuela (03/06)

....ECONOMY

....Central Bank-held international reserves increased to U.S.$30.4 billion at the end of 2005. The reserves would have been higher, but the BCV transferred $6 billion to the National Development Fund (FONDEN) during the last quarter 2005, as directed by the Central Bank Law (July 2005). The level of international reserves is expected to decrease during 2006 because the Central Bank Law established that state-owned oil company PDVSA will only transfer the foreign exchange earnings needed for its domestic expenses, taxes, royalties, and dividends to the BCV, and would transfer the rest to FONDEN.

Venezuelan sovereign debt, both domestic and foreign, has been increasing. The government announced plans to prepay some of its most expensive foreign debt and to extend the debt profile of the domestic debt, reducing near-term debt service. Despite increases in domestic and foreign debt, Venezuela’s debt/GDP ratio is low by Latin American standards. Venezuela’s Emerging Markets Bond Index investment risk rating, at 213 basis points, dropped somewhat over 2005, but remained higher than all countries in the region except Argentina and Brazil.

There is considerable income inequality. The Gini coefficient was 0.514 during 2005. According to private sources, the percentages of poor and extremely poor among Venezuelan population were 67% and 35%, respectively, in 2005. These high ratios are due primarily to lower real wages earned by employees, and high rates of un- and underemployment.

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

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
February 2007

.......Central Bank-held international reserves increased to over U.S.$36 billion at the end of 2006. The reserves would have been higher, but the BCV transferred $6 billion to the National Development Fund (FONDEN) during the last quarter 2005, as directed by the Central Bank Law (July 2005) and an additional $4.3 billion in 2006. The level of international reserves is expected to decrease during 2007 after additional transfers of foreign reserves to FONDEN and because the Central Bank Law established that state-owned oil company PDVSA will only transfer the foreign exchange earnings needed for its domestic expenses, taxes, royalties, and dividends to the BCV, and would transfer the rest to FONDEN.

Venezuelan sovereign debt, both domestic and foreign, has decreased in recent years in both absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP. Venezuela's external debt/GDP ratio of approximately 16% is low by Latin American standards. Venezuela's Emerging Markets Bond Index investment risk rating, at 202 basis points, dropped somewhat over 2005, but remained higher than many in the region.

<h2>There is considerable income inequality. The Gini coefficient was 0.45 during 2006.</h2> According to government statistics, the percentages of poor and extremely poor among Venezuelan population were 33.9% and 23.2%, respectively, in 2006. These high ratios are due primarily to lower real wages earned by employees, and high rates of un- and underemployment.

Although economic growth has been impressive, as a result of the oil windfall, many in the Venezuelan business community remain very concerned about President Chavez' vision for 21st Century Socialism and what it portends for the private sector.

Quote:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...elds/2172.html

Country ......Distribution of family income - Gini index

Argentina 48.3 (June 2006)

Brazil 56.7 (2005)

Colombia 53.8 (2005)

Israel 38.6 (2005)

Netherlands 30.9 (2005)

Russia 40.5 (2005)

Ukraine 31 (2006)

<h2>United States 45 (2004)</h2>

This page was last updated on 19 July, 2007

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

Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/200604220...60303-fri.html
Mar 03, 2006

<b>Global: Globalization's New Underclass</b>

Stephen Roach (New York)

.....The United States and China exemplify the full range of pressures bearing down on the income distribution. With per capita income of $38,000 and $1,700, respectively, the US and China are at opposite ends of the global income spectrum. Yet both countries have extreme disparities in the internal mix of their respective income distributions. This can be seen in their so-called Gini coefficients -- a statistical measure of the dispersion of income shares within a country. A Gini Index reading of “0” represents perfect equality, with each segment of the income distribution accounting for a proportionate share of total income. Conversely, a reading of “100” represents perfect inequality, with the bulk of a nation’s overall personal income being concentrated at the upper end of the distribution spectrum. In other words, the higher the Gini Index, the more unequal the income distribution. The latest Gini Index readings for the US (41) and China (45) are among the highest of all the major economies in the world -- pointing to a much greater incidence of inequality than in economies with more homogeneous distributions of income, such as Japan (25), Europe (32), and even India (33).

While the US and China suffer from similar degrees of income inequality, they have arrived at this point through very different means. In the case of the US, there is nothing new about elevated readings of income inequality. America’s Gini coefficient has been on the rise for over 35 years -- moving up from about 35 in 1970 to over 40 today. What is new is how America’s income distribution has become more unequal in a period of rapidly rising productivity growth -- a development that has been accompanied by an extraordinary bout of real wage stagnation over the past four years. Economics teaches us that in truly competitive labor markets such as America’s, workers are paid in accordance with their marginal productivity contribution. Yet that has not been the case for quite some time in the US. Over the past 16 quarters, productivity in the nonfarm US business sector has recorded a cumulative increase of 13.3% (or 3.3% per annum) -- more than double the 5.9% rise in real compensation per hour (stagnant wages plus rising fringe benefits) over the same period.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the relationship between productivity growth and worker compensation has broken down as the forces of globalization have intensified.......

....While fully 560 million urban Chinese are now participating in the economy’s rapid development dynamic, that still leaves a rural population of some 745 million on the outside looking in. Interestingly enough, the accelerating trend of rural-to-urban migration has done little to arrest the inequalities of the Chinese income distribution over the past 15 years. This is somewhat surprising in that urban per capita incomes in China (US$1,531 in the top 35 cities in 2004) are slightly more than three times those in rural areas ($488). But the increase in China’s overall Gini Index from 35 in 1990 to 45 in 2003 not only reflects the impacts of an ever-widening income disparity between coastal China and the rest of the nation, but it is also a function of the increased divergence in the distribution of urban incomes.....

....Significantly, Chinese income disparities in the Internet age may well have a very different connotation than in the past. With increased IT connectivity in western and central China -- mainly in the form of the village kiosk -- the rural poor now have real-time access to the “outside world.” This gives them a very vivid picture of the prosperity they are missing. In that vein, the Internet has the potential to spark resentment and social instability in China’s two-track development model -- the very last thing the government wants.....

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....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/te...l?ref=business
In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don’t Feel Rich
By GARY RIVLIN
Published: August 5, 2007

.....But many such accomplished and ambitious members of the digital elite still do not think of themselves as particularly fortunate, in part because they are surrounded by people with more wealth — often a lot more.

When chief executives are routinely paid tens of millions of dollars a year and a hedge fund manager can collect $1 billion annually, those with a few million dollars often see their accumulated wealth as puny, a reflection of their modest status in the new Gilded Age, when hundreds of thousands of people have accumulated much vaster fortunes......

......Mr. Kremen estimated his net worth at $10 million. That puts him firmly in the top half of 1 percent among Americans, according to wealth data from the Federal Reserve, but barely in the top echelons in affluent towns like Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton. So he logs 60- to 80-hour workweeks because, he said, he does not think he has nearly enough money to ease up.

<h3>“You’re nobody here at $10 million,” Mr. Kremen said earnestly over a glass of pinot noir at an upscale wine bar here...........</h3>

.....Yet like other working-class millionaires of Silicon Valley, she harbors anxieties about her financial future. Ms. Baranski — who was briefly worth as much as $200 million in 2000 but cashed out only $1 million before the collapse of the tech bubble — returned to work in March......

....“People around here, if they have 2 or 3 million dollars, they don’t feel secure,” said David W. Hettig, an estate planner based in Menlo Park who has advised Silicon Valley’s wealthy for two decades......

....“They recognize that if they happened to walk into a different office,” said Marilyn Holland, a Menlo Park psychologist who has been counseling the Valley’s elite for 25 years, “things would have turned out very differently.”.....

....That is one big difference between these working-class millionaires and the country’s wealthiest tycoons, who tend to see themselves as pillars of the community worthy of the hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps billions, they now possess.

“A lot of the money here is accidental money,” said Bruce Karsh, 51, an engineer who puts his net worth at $2 million to $4 million. “People weren’t setting out to become gazillionaires.”.....

.......Like most of her neighbors, Ms. Baranski splurged most on a house in a community studded with some of the most expensive real estate in the country. Early in 2001, when Ms. Baranski seemed richer than she was, they paid $1.95 million for a dilapidated house in Menlo Park, knowing they would tear it down. They spent $1 million over the next few years building their dream house.

Ms. Baranski recognizes, of course, that she is far better off than many of her neighbors. Even well-paid college administrators, professors and other white-collar professionals struggle to pay their bills in this expensive redoubt 30 miles south of San Francisco.

<h3>“I don’t know how people live here on just a normal salary,” said Ms. Baranski.</h3>

Her nanny rents an apartment in Palo Alto, Ms. Baranski said. She pays her what she described as a generous salary and gave her the keys to her old Saab when she bought the newer one. But “basically I have no idea how she survives here.”

Mr. Hettig, the estate planning lawyer, sums it up for many: “We’re in such a rarefied environment,” he said, “people here lose perspective on what the rest of the world looks like.”......

.....No one knows for certain how many single-digit millionaires live in Silicon Valley. <h3>Certainly their numbers reach into the tens of thousands,</h3> say those who work with the area’s engineers and entrepreneurs. Yet nearly all of them still have all-consuming jobs, not only because the work gives them a sense of achievement and satisfaction but also because they think they must work so much to afford their gilded neighborhoods........

......To Mr. Milletti, it all looks like a marathon with no finish line.

“Here, the top 1 percent chases the top one-tenth of 1 percent, and the top one-tenth of 1 percent chases the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent,” he said.

“You try not to get caught up in it,” he added, “but it’s hard not to.”......

dksuddeth · 08-06-2007, 09:59 PM

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?

Willravel · 08-06-2007, 10:09 PM

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.

host · 08-06-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

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

Quote:

http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/v/57234.htm
Venezuela (11/05)

.ECONOMY

....Central Bank-held international reserves increased from U.S.$21.39 billion in January to U.S. $23.91 billion in November 2004, after growing U.S. $6.6 billion in 2003.....
...There is considerable income inequality. The Gini coefficient was 0.618 during 2003. According to private sources, the percentages of poor and extremely poor among Venezuelan population were 74.6% and 39.3%, respectively, in 2003.....

http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/v/73479.htm

Venezuela (03/06)

....ECONOMY

....Central Bank-held international reserves increased to U.S.$30.4 billion at the end of 2005. The reserves would have been higher, but the BCV transferred $6 billion to the National Development Fund (FONDEN) during the last quarter 2005, as directed by the Central Bank Law (July 2005).....
.....There is considerable income inequality. The Gini coefficient was 0.514 during 2005. According to private sources, the percentages of poor and extremely poor among Venezuelan population were 67% and 35%, respectively, in 2005......

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

Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs
February 2007

.......Central Bank-held international reserves increased to over U.S.$36 billion at the end of 2006. The reserves would have been higher, but the BCV transferred $6 billion to the National Development Fund (FONDEN) during the last quarter 2005, as directed by the Central Bank Law (July 2005) and an additional $4.3 billion in 2006....
.....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......

....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?

dksuddeth · 08-07-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

....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?

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.

host · 08-07-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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. <h3>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.</h3>

...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.)

roachboy · 08-07-2007, 09:26 AM

nice host...

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

Willravel · 08-07-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Rekna · 08-07-2007, 10:53 AM

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....

roachboy · 08-07-2007, 11:05 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 08-07-2007, 11:48 AM

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:

Quote:

Venezuela benefited from the oil boom of the early 1970s. In 1974, President Carlos Andrés Pérez took office, and in 1976 Venezuela nationalized foreign-owned oil and steel companies, offering compensation. Luis Herrera Campíns became president in 1978. Declining world oil prices sent Venezuela's economy into a tailspin, increasing the country's foreign debt. Pérez was reelected to a nonconsecutive term in 1988 and launched an unpopular austerity program. Military officers staged two unsuccessful coup attempts in 1992, while the following year Congress impeached Pérez on corruption charges. President Rafael Caldera Rodríguez was elected in Dec. 1993 to face the 1994 collapse of half of the country's banking sector, falling oil prices, foreign debt repayment, and inflation. In 1997, the government announced an expansion of gold and diamond mining to reduce reliance on oil.

Leftist president Hugo Chavez took office in 1999, pledging political and economic reforms to give the poor a greater share of the country's oil wealth. A constituent assembly was formed to rewrite the constitution in July 1999, followed by the creation of a constitutional assembly made up of Chavez's allies that replaced the democratically elected Congress. Chavez's assumption of greater power prompted charges that he is establishing a left-wing dictatorship.

Chavez was reelected to a six-year term in July 2000. Troops were called in to quell serious protests over the election in several cities. In 2000 Chavez visited other OPEC countries, becoming the first foreign head of state to visit Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War. He is close to President Fidel Castro of Cuba, which receives Venezuelan oil at reduced prices.

In Dec. 2001, business and labor organizations held a work stoppage to protest Chavez's increasingly authoritarian government. In April 2002, tensions reached a boiling point as workers reduced oil production to protest Chavez's policies. Following a massive anti-Chavez demonstration during which 12 people were killed, a coalition of business and military leaders forced Chavez from power. But international criticism of the coup, especially in Latin America, and an outpouring of support from the president's followers returned Chavez to power just two days later. After the coup, Chavez remained highly popular among the poor, despite the desperate state of the economy. Venezuelan labor unions, business organizations, the media, and a good part of the military remained substantially less enchanted.

Beginning in early Dec. 2002, a general strike was called by business and labor leaders. By Jan. 2003 it had virtually brought the economy, including the oil industry, to a halt. Strike leaders pledged to continue until Chavez resigned or agreed to early elections. But in Feb. 2003, after nine weeks, the strikers conceded defeat. In Aug. 2003, a petition with 3.2 million signatures was delivered to the country's election commission, demanding a recall referendum on Chavez. The Chavez government challenged the referendum process rigorously, and petitions submitted in Sept. 2003 and Feb. 2004 were rejected as invalid. The electoral board finally accepted a petition in June 2004 and scheduled the referendum for August 15. Chavez, who had been shoring up his standing with the Venezuelan poor during the delays, won the referendum with an overwhelming 58% of the vote. The opposition alleged fraud, but international observers confirmed that there had been no irregularities. Chavez's hand was clearly strengthened, and by the spring of 2005, his popularity rating reached 70%, due in large part to his social spending programs. In Dec. 2005 parliamentary elections, Chávez's Fifth Republic Movement won 114 of 167 seats, and the remaining seats were won by his allies. The opposition boycotted the election, maintaining they could not trust the pro-Chavez National Electoral Council. President Chávez won reelection in Dec. 2006 with 63% of the vote.

In early 2007, Chávez took significant steps to further consolidate his power and move Venezuela closer to becoming a socialist state. In January, he announced the nationalization of major energy and telecommunications companies. Days later, the National Assembly voted to allow Chávez to rule by decree for 18 months. In May, Chávez shut down the main opposition television station, RCTV, which has been critical of the government.

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.

Quote:

When Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez criticizes the U.S., makes threats to cut off oil exports, cozies up to Fidel Castro, props up other leftist governments in South America or negotiates a major weapons deal with Russia, he puts U.S. taxpayers' money where his mouth is, thanks to a deal approved by the IRS in 1989.

James Williams, an Arkansas-based oil analyst with WTRG Economics, estimates that an obscure 17-year-old pricing formula between Venezuela's state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela and its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Citgo Petroleum Corp., is worth up to $1 million a day to Chavez.

Under the agreement, approved by the IRS when oil prices were about 25 percent of what they are today, Citgo is forced to buy PDVSA's crude for at least $5 a barrel over the market price. This results in a reduction in Citgo's taxable earnings in the U.S. and an increase in Venezuela's profits by hundreds of million of dollars annually.

Williams estimates that Citgo has been paying $5 to $8 dollars over market for the past 2 years.

"At the moment, we have the strange situation where the U.S. is subsidizing Venezuela to the extent of the tax relief on the excess above-market prices," Oliver Campbell, a former finance coordinator of PDVSA, told the Washington Times.

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:

Quote:

Venezuela
With a mediocre score of 3.37, Venezuela lags behind all countries included in this paper, except for Bolivia and Dominican Republic, for the attractiveness of its environment for private investment in infrastructure. As shown in Figure 23a, it ranks among the last in the sample in five of the eight pillars comprising the index. It under performs the region, often by a great deal, in six pillars. Venezuela is the worst performer in the General Investment Environmental Factors sub-index. In particular, Venezuela comes last in the legal framework pillar. A look at the huge gap between its score (2.09) and the regional average (3.25) suffices to indicate the extent to which the country has fallen behind in this dimension. It ranks last not only in all three components of this pillar, but also on nine of its 13 indicators.

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:

Quote:

There is a sharp contradiction. On the one hand, the state must extract financial resources from the oil industry to underwrite its development and social spending plans (and, increasingly, to meet rising popular expectations and shore up the political base of the Chavez regime). On the other hand, the state must invest to maintain the competitiveness of the oil industry as a capitalist enterprise in the international capitalist market.8

Again, there is great tension here. In the last two years, social programs have absorbed a larger share of the state oil company’s budget than has spending on maintenance and new oil capacity. This social spending by the government puts strains on needed investments in the oil sector. To say investments are “needed” is not to make some pure technical statement; rather, investments are “needed” from the standpoint of an oil-exporting economy and the dictates of the world market—improving efficiency and compensating for possible price declines with expanded output. Because Venezuela’s wells are so old, output declines 23 percent a year—and so it is necessary to drill new wells just to maintain capacity.9 There is a pull exerted by competition on the world market, intensified by low levels of investment in Venezuela’s oil sector relative to other oil-producing countries, to upgrade and expand the industry, and maintain profitability.

If foreign investment comes forth to finance a major share of Plan Siembra, this investment carries with it real control and puts real leverage in the hands of those foreign investors. This is important to bear in mind. Venezuela is not unusual in having formal sovereignty over its oil. Some three-quarters of the world’s oil and gas reserves and half of global output are controlled by national state oil companies like Saudi Aramco, Kuwait Petroleum, and the Algerian state company. But the national-state oil companies rely on international finance, work through international trade and marketing channels, and collaborate with the large, Western-based transnational oil companies, like Exxon-Mobil. These transnational corporations and their service company networks have strong competitive advantage: in scale, reach, and core managerial and technological competences, financial capabilities, support by the Western imperialist governments, and the ability to pull up stakes in a country like Venezuela.

In terms of the second track: higher tax and royalty payments. In April 2006, Chavez announced his intention to increase PDVSA’s share in major projects to 60 percent from 40 percent. The Chavez government is creating new forms of joint ventures (what are now called “mixed companies”) with Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum, and others. Oil resources and oil profits are jointly owned in the form of single new enterprises—only now, the Venezuelan government obtains a higher proportion of profits than it had previously, while the foreign oil companies, with heavy investments, benefit from current high oil prices and prospect of profitable new oil fields. At the same time, the government has negotiated with the 22 foreign companies operating in Venezuela to agree to a new tax law that is being enforced retroactively.

On May 1, 2007, Chavez made good on his ultimatum to the foreign companies that they accept a larger share of ownership by the Venezuelan government or cease operations. Chavez may be a tough negotiator (and did succeed in getting a larger slice of rising oil revenues from companies who want to stay put in order to recoup the value of their investments and make huge profits). At the same time, to keep these projects alive, to go forward with expansion plans, Chavez must reach some kind of understanding with foreign capital, as these firms are providing essential finance and technology. So the threat of takeover was sweetened with a commitment to compensate the firms.10

The third track of the oil program is to restructure Venezuela’s external trade relations away from dependence on the U.S. as a market and source of investment capital and technical expertise. Venezuela accounts for some 12 percent of the U.S.’s daily oil imports, and plays a certain strategic role in the U.S. ability to project power in the world. But the other side of the equation is more telling, illustrating an aspect of Venezuela’s structural dependency : that 12 percent share of U.S. oil imports accounted for by Venezuela represents 60 percent of Venezuela’s total oil exports!11

In seeking to diversify markets, Chavez has opened negotiations with China and has plans to sell Venezuelan oil to China, the world’s second-largest energy consumer, and to India as well. But there are high costs of servicing these markets. Venezuela does not have a Pacific port, and large tankers cannot make it through the Panama Canal. So Venezuela would need to construct pipeline through Colombia in order to ship the oil. But shipment to Asia is costly, owing to the long distances involved. Further, China does not have adequate capacity to refine Venezuela’s sulfur-rich crude. China is investing substantial sums to increase that capacity, but China is also exploring for oil and gas closer to its shores in the South China Sea and angling as well for deals in the Caspian Sea region.

The U.S. connection is a difficult knot for Chavez to cut, especially if oil is to be the centerpiece of development. There is the close proximity of the U.S. market and low transportation costs. There are the refineries in the U.S. adapted to processing Venezuela’s oil. And the U.S. continues to be Venezuela’s most important trading partner (U.S.-Venezuela trade actually rose 36 percent in 2006). These are among the pressures operating on Chavez to maintain stable economic relations with the U.S.,12 even if the U.S. has other plans.

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

dksuddeth · 08-07-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

nice host...

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

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Well first off, throwing out American capitalists is a good thing in Latin America.

why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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....

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

Willravel · 08-07-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

why?

Because the US's economic stance with Latin America is one of extortion and control, as we've seen over the past 40+ years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

He's not broken any rules. As you might remind me, you can't arrest someone for buying guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

Wow, that's quite a non-answer.

dksuddeth · 08-07-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Wow, that's quite a non-answer.

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

Willravel · 08-07-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

It's patting yourself on the back.

dksuddeth · 08-07-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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

Willravel · 08-07-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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.

powerclown · 08-07-2007, 06:46 PM

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.

Willravel · 08-07-2007, 06:51 PM

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

powerclown · 08-07-2007, 07:53 PM

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.

Willravel · 08-07-2007, 08:03 PM

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.

powerclown · 08-07-2007, 09:39 PM

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?

Willravel · 08-07-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

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?

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.

powerclown · 08-07-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Willravel · 08-07-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

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.

host · 08-07-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

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?

...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:

Quote:

http://www.brokeruniverse.com/hearing/
What We're Hearing
By Paul Muolo

.....In the 20-plus years that I've been covering residential finance I haven't seen a financial meltdown this swift since the S&L crisis of the mid-to-late 1980s. One subprime executive who closed his shop a few months ago told me, "This is a liquidity crunch the likes I have never seen." Meanwhile, the mudslide is rolling downhill from Wall Street to mortgage bankers, to loan brokers, and then the consumer. .....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118643226865289581.html
How Credit Got So Easy
And Why It's Tightening
By GREG IP and JON E. HILSENRATH
August 7, 2007; Page A1
<center>Subprime Loan Origination:<p><img src="http://online.wsj.com/media/info-Creditchrtbk0708-less.gif"><p><br><img src="http://www.nowandfutures.com/download/mew_gdp_1976-2006.jpg"></center>

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....:

Quote:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...&ps=false&a=up

Lenders that Have Closed Shop,
Been Acquired or Stopped Loans
More than 80 mostly subprime mortgage lenders -- those that make home loans to the riskiest borrowers with questionable credit -- have closed shop since the end of last year as clients defaulted on payments and banks cut off the funding required to make the loans. The trend accelerated early this year, and by the spring it seemed companies both large and small were stopping new loan activity, closing shop, declaring bankruptcy or being sold off every other day or two.

<b>Date Announced ↑ Company Name Home State Loans Originated (bil. of $, 2005) Outcome </b>
08/07/07 Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc. California 3.3 ..........Stopped funding loans
08/07/07 HomeBanc Corp. ........Georgia ................6.4 ............ Stopped loans
08/06/07 Aegis Mortgage Corp. Texas ................N/A ............ Stopped loans
08/06/07 American Home Mortgage New York ....... 45.3 ........... Bankrupt
08/06/07 National City Home Equity Ohio .... N/A ............ Stopped loans
08/04/07 NovaStar Financial Inc. Missouri ....... 9.3 ................Stopped loans

Read the rest of the names on the list....there are 80 more mortgage lenders....failed, in the last 9 months....

....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....

dksuddeth · 08-08-2007, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

You brought up your hypothetical wife needing surgery.

There is nothing hypothetical about her needing surgery.

host · 08-08-2007, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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:

Quote:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...n-health-care/

If this man’s genuine passion and anguish doesn’t move you, you’re not human. Steve Skvara, a disabled, retired steel worker from Indiana tells the story of how he lost his family’s health insurance after the company he worked for, for 34 years closed two years after they forced him to retire. Skvara received a standing ovation, and rightfully so. He represents millions of hard working Americans who have lost their jobs and benefits and face the humiliation of not being able to provide for themselves or their families. .....

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?

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia

.......The case

In June 1830, a delegation of Cherokee led by Chief John Ross selected William Wirt, attorney general in the Monroe and Adams administrations, on the urging of Senators Daniel Webster and Theodore Frelinghuysen to defend Cherokee rights before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Cherokee nation asked for an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislation had created laws which, "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society". Wirt argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law..." and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. Wirt asked the Supreme Court to null and void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee lands on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.

The injunction was denied, on the grounds that the Cherokee people, not being a state, and claiming to be independent of the United States, were a "denominated domestic dependent nation", over which the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction. Although the Court determined that it did not have original jurisdiction in this case, the Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee.

However the 1832 Supreme Court decision Worcester v. Georgia later ruled that Georgia could not impose its laws upon Cherokee tribal lands.........

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.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

There is nothing hypothetical about her needing surgery.

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

Rekna · 08-08-2007, 07:29 AM

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.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 08:46 AM

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.

guyy · 08-08-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Willravel · 08-08-2007, 09:08 AM

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.

08-06-2007, 02:26 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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?

08-06-2007, 02:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	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's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

08-06-2007, 02:59 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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. Last edited by Willravel; 08-06-2007 at 03:03 PM..

08-06-2007, 05:00 PM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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) __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-06-2007, 07:35 PM	#6 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	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 believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

08-06-2007, 03:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
albania Psycho	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.

08-06-2007, 09:59 PM	#9 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	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? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

08-06-2007, 10:09 PM	#10 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

08-07-2007, 09:26 AM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	nice host... i was going to post something, but it's better to wait for a response, i think. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-07-2007, 10:53 AM	#16 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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....

08-07-2007, 11:05 AM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	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. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-07-2007, 06:46 PM	#25 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	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.

08-07-2007, 06:51 PM	#26 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's a good thing he wasn't tricked by his community college economics professor into thinking the free market economy is perfect.

08-07-2007, 07:53 PM	#27 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	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.

08-07-2007, 08:03 PM	#28 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

08-07-2007, 09:39 PM	#29 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	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?

08-08-2007, 07:29 AM	#37 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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.

08-08-2007, 08:46 AM	#38 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

08-08-2007, 09:08 AM	#40 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.