Oil-rich Venezuela gripped by economic crisis

[naaman fletcher]

"The government is paralyzed, unable to handle the situation -- and there are no fiscal plans to deal with the crisis," said José Guerra, a former Central Bank economist who directs the economics department at Central University in Caracas, the capital. "Our situation is unbelievable, because we have one of the biggest reserves of oil in the world, thermal-electrical and hydroelectric sources."

......

Venezuela's performance stands in stark contrast to the rest of Latin America, where some central banks worry about overheating economies in 2010. In Peru, Chile and Brazil, all of which embrace globalization, growth could indeed go well beyond 4 percent, the IMF says. Venezuela, economists say, stands out -- its economic policies marked by the nationalization of industries and stringent currency controls.

"The reason Venezuela is contracting is because private activity is contracting," Augusto de la Torre, the World Bank's chief economist for Latin America, said in Washington last week. "What we're seeing in Venezuela is a phenomenon where productivity, private activity and private business is falling."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042805712.html?hpid=artslot

[dkf]

1. Hey but everything is equal right?

[Ken Burch]

5. You can't be for peace AND be for forcing Venezuela to the right.

They have nothing to gain from privatization and tax cuts for the rich.

If it didn't work here, it damn well can't work there.

[dkf]

8. There is something to be gained by privitization.

That is a functioning industry. Venezuelan government officials know as much as you or I know about running those things.

But hey starve now and save for the future right? I'm sure the oil will be more valuable as the supplies get lower unless we switch to renewables by then.

[WinkyDink]

136. You aren't living in a shantytown, are you?

[NeedleCast]

2. Mmmm Hmmmmm

So much for Hugo's socialist paradise.

[Ken Burch]

6. He hadn't said it was paradise, just a lot better than what they had.

And what the hell do YOU have to suggest?

They'd gain nothing from having the gringo millionaires come back.

[NeedleCast]

9. Looks like they'd gain the same economic expantion that their neighbors are experiencing

The ones who haven't nationalized their biggest assets.

What do I have to suggest? Nothing, really. My ability to influence politics in Venezuela is pretty limited. Unfortunatly for Hugo, I don't think holding a bunch of cheerleading sessions (in the dark) is going to help much either, and (according to the article) that's pretty much all he's doing.

From the article:

Chávez has publicly expressed no concern, though he acknowledged the economic downturn in a Sunday speech.

"Is that reason to worry?" he asked the party faithful. "Not at all."

<snip>

Reminds me of a certain former Republican president telling us that there was no economic crisis on the horizon...

[MyNameGoesHere]

21. Sure because everyone wants to be America's whore.

We have solved everyone's problems right? From the mid-east to the Americas, we have continually fucked up countries. Let them fuck it up themselves and not be a whore to anyone.

[Statistical]

120. That wasn't really the other point.

Latin America is the fastest growing segement of the world (other than China).

Productivity, exports, average income, number of people out of poverty....

all rising as phenomenal rate. All countries except Venezuela.

It isn't crazy to say "hey why not Venezuela". If the neighbors on your block are seeing prosperity and you aren't then maybe just maybe the problem is with you.

[sufrommich]

3. But their health care is fabulous. Which makes up for

everything else. ;)

[Ken Burch]

4. Well, they'd hardly be better off being like us.

We've proven that capitalism leaves too many people out in the cold.

[naaman fletcher]

11. Yes, I'm sure if given the option

that the vast majority of venezuelans would choose to have their own economy instead of ours /sarcasm.

[Ken Burch]

12. A lot of US don't want OUR economy.

How can you call yourself a Democrat and defend the status quo?

The system we have now betrays the people. Market values are the enemy of everything progressive.

It would be a tragedy if Venezuela ended up like Nicaragua after 1990.

[naaman fletcher]

13. Did I defend the status quo?

The status quo stinks, but it is a hell of a lot better than it is in Venezuela.

[Ken Burch]

24. Nothing progressive happens in countries where the economy gets privatized

Market values societies are always right-wing.

A privatized Venezuela would be a place where the black majority would lose everything and the Euro-minority would have all the power again. Where the community councils(the only real democracy Venezuela has ever had)would be scrapped and the rich-man's parliament would have all the power again.

Why would you wish that on anyone?

[KittyWampus]

32. so you are saying all European countries are right-wing? They all have Market value societies.

They all have privatized much of the economic commerce.

Of course they also have socialized some segments too, in a variety of ways.

What you might consider is that Chavez might have moved Left in a more balanced manner. Can you name his economic advisors? It certainly appears he reacts more than works from an overall plan.

[Ken Burch]

35. The progressive aspects of European societies are all from the non-market side of their economies

They've gone further and further right as they've gone more and more capitalist.

The OP wasn't talking about making Venezuela into Scandinavian social democracy, though. He's pushing for full-blooded Reaganism-Thatcherism. THAT is all that could come from privatizing the oil industry.

[Statistical]

121. The progressive aspects are paid for by a robust economy.

A robust economy created by private sector wealth and expansion.

The problem in the US isn't capitalism. The problem in the US has been the utter lack of progressive taxation, social safety net, and programs that help the average American.

To pretend the US would somehow be better under a lunatic-run economy like what they have in Venezuela is laughable.

[naaman fletcher]

34. What are we arguing?

I pointed out a belief that the vast majority of Venezuelans would rather live in the US economy than their own. You keep arguing about points I didn't make.

Now, do you think that, if given a choice, the vast majority of Venezuelans would choose their own economy of ours?

[Ken Burch]

41. People often prefer to live in wealthier societies.

In and of itself, that means nothing.

[naaman fletcher]

42. Well I am glad you know better than poor people do. nt.

[Ken Burch]

46. You really HATE the idea the Venezuela has demonstrated that alternatives to capitalism can work

Why are you still hanging on to the pathetic idea that we should settle for just making the market slightly less ugly?

Some of us don't want to live without dignity. And you have no dignity if you live to get rich(particularly since it's almost impossible).

And it's not about me thinking I know better than the poor.

[naaman fletcher]

53. Since you keep arguing with me on points that I never made,

I am just going to give up and go argue with someone who argues points made, not points that weren't made.

[hack89]

140. How can you say they are working

when it is clear that they are not? It is very simple - regardless of who owns it, without an robust economy that generates sufficient wealth no country can afford the social safety net that everyone deserves. Right now the Venezuelan economy is not generating that wealth.

[Flaneur]

43. You can probably say that about most Peruvians or Colombians, too.

So what?

[laughingliberal]

93. +1 nt

[Ken Burch]

115. +100

It sounds like a frighteningly large number of DU'ers would've backed the Contras, from the responses in this thread.

[SharonAnn]

7. Could be real or it could like the CIA bringing the Chilean economy to its knees in 1973

to prepare the populace for the military coup.

Kissinger (Nixon) had direct roles in that and they did it in order to destabilize the economy. The reason they did it was that the multi-national companies and their wealthy cronies were unhappy about having to pay royalties and other costs. They were used to get what they wanted for free. So, the US stepped in, took actions that destablized the economy and had the citizens up in arms. Many then blamed it on Allende and welcomed Pinochet with open arms. Then the "boys" from Chicago began the process of selling public assets at low prices to their cronies.

There's enough that's similar here to wonder if the CIA is playing a role in this one, too.

The CIA involvement in Chile is well-documented now, though it was not well-known at the time.

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. That would make Chavez a CIA agent. Interesting. nt

[bridgit]

10. Venezuela is experiencing the downsides of a management crisis

Chavez firing the groups, then annexing the product of their efforts that developed "one of the biggest reserves of oil in the world, thermal-electrical and hydroelectric sources" he then repopulated what should have been a slam-dunk asset; repopulated it with his brand of romanticized, emotionally charged "Booyah!" South American Style it-is-all-someone-else's-fault "I can still smell the sulfur" Socialism that while containing sunshine, red bandannas and many feel good components lacks - the level of operational expertise required to further what remains a capital venture - Venezuela is experiencing the downsides of a management crisis

Failures in management contribute mightily to economic crisis

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. POST OF THE YEAR

Bravo.

[Ken Burch]

25. Said the right-winger.

n/t.

[bridgit]

26. Replies the pie in the sky eyed rube?

:spray:

[Ken Burch]

30. Venezuela has problems. It would have problems just as bad or worse if it were capitalist

And a capitalist Venezuela would have nothing progressive about it anymore.

The place does need help, but moving it to the right can't provide any.

[Statistical]

123. Stawman of the year.

Europe is rather progressive (higher education, universal health care, strong labor, minimum living standard, good social safety net) however the WEALTH to creat that progressive system doesn't come from the govt it comes from the private sector.

Strong private sector feeds strong govt revenue (taxes) which allows govt to pay for progressive (and expensive) programs.
Without a strong private sector in Europe it would look much like Venezuela does today.

[bridgit]

128. Plenty fair enough - sometimes, it *is* simply as fair as it gets

:kick:

[Dreamer Tatum]

27. Wrong. It's simply a management crisis

You can't implement a Bolivaran paradise without good management, and so far it appears there hasn't been any.

Or is management suddenly a RW phenomenon only?

[Ken Burch]

28. It's about the assumption that the only good management can be provided

by gringo oil executives. That's what the person who started this thread is pushing for-letting the rich take Venezuela's oil money for themselves.

[Dreamer Tatum]

33. That's your assumption, not mine. nt

[NeedleCast]

39. +1

[Statistical]

122. +1. Some people just want to see it as a Bush vs. Chavez thing. They BOTH suck ass as leaders.

Corrupt uncontrolled capitalism can (US under bush) can be bad.
That doesn't magically make horribly managed seizures of assets in the name of the "people" and epic destruction of wealth (Venezuela) good.

It is possible (and in this reality) that both suck!

[Renew Deal]

14. Maybe they are spending too much on weapons

And why would any private business want to set up shop in Venezuala when there is a constant threat of government takeover?

[Ken Burch]

19. Don't make Republican posts on DU!

n/t.

[Renew Deal]

51. Case in point

your reply

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Here's the key right here, in the last sentence of the OP:

"What we're seeing in Venezuela is a phenomenon where productivity, private activity and private business is falling."

TRANSLATION: If you don't give the c(r)apitalists what they want they will shut you down, starve you, choke you.

There can be no half-measure accomodations with the homocidally greedy.

[Ken Burch]

16. well put.

This whole thread is a puzzlement. Who knew DU had a Milton Friedman Fan Club?

[laughingliberal]

98. MF has a big fan club here from what I've seen. nt

[NeedleCast]

18. Another way to say it

is that if you take over the possession of other people, they're unlikely to return to your house for more.

How come when things are going well in Venezuela Hugo gets all the credit for his New Socialism and when things start to fall apart it's always the evil capitalist?

Couldn't it be that Hugo's plan isn't working very well?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NeedleCast]

37. I'm not

and you're opinion is, fortunately, your own.

Lucky for me you don't get to be grand arbiter of who gets to be a Democrat this week.

[Ken Burch]

50. What else could you be if you want a socialist country to go capitalist?

Market values countries are always to the right of those that aren't. Everything progressive in Nicaragua stopped when the Sandinistas were voted out.

[NeedleCast]

78. Must suck to live in a black and white world

Your one-note idea of what makes someone a conservative or liberal based on where they stand on a single axis of the political spectrum is humorous.

There are many socialistic practices a nation can introduce that don't involve the nationalization of assets and assigning political allies to positions where they have no understanding of the industries they're being placed "in charge of." I have no issues with many social practices. I favor socialized medicines, a welfare system, and many other social practices.

I just understand that when you suddenly nationalize industries that were privatized before and replace people with the business experience to run said industries with political appointees who don't, that you're probably going to fuck your nation into the ground in short order. Like Venezuela is doing.

But, you know, I get it. Like any social purist, you'd rather live in the ruins of a purely social economy than dirty yourself with reality.

[Ken Burch]

81. I'd like to see a transition towards more democratic worker management in Venezuela

You can't peg me as a defender of bureaucratic management.

And there's a difference between what you're talking about here vs what you're talking about in Venezuela.

It would be gains for this country to have the things you say you favor on social practices.
Realistically, that would probably be as far as we could go in the next few years.

It would be grievous losses to have Venezuela end up back at the mercy of Exxon and the rest. The last thing they need down there is swaggering Texans and the return to power or rich Venezuelans(almost all of whom are white supremacists who feel no concern for the poor and the workers at all). No place on the Earth needs more Gordon Geckos.

There needs to be creative management of all enterprizes, and management from below if at all possible. Not greed-based management for the few.

[NeedleCast]

90. But you're not going to get a transition towards a more democratic worker management under Chavez

Ever.

Sometimes being at the mercy of Exxon is better than being at the mercy of a socialist leader who doesn't seem to be able to fix a crumbling economy and energy infrastructure. You want to stand on the ashes of the Venezualan economy and the bones of the dead and talk about what a courageous attempt it was at pure socialism it was, go ahead. I'm going to stick with more pragmatic options.

[Ken Burch]

106. Once the rich take back over, all hopes of progress dies.

You never regain what you lose.

There will be no progressive policies in Venezuela on anything if the oil gets privatized. The past proves this.

[northzax]

38. what?

it goes without saying?

so you don't believe in any market economics at all? none? your boss offers you a raise, and you refuse, unless everyone else is getting one, too? you refuse your health insurance, because others don't have any? you return your bonus (if you get one) because it is different from others? you insist on only working for the minimum wage, because everyone should be paid equally, so you won't make any more than anyone else? that's what you do, right? obviously, you don't have any savings, since others may not, and it's important to share all that. you live in a boarding house with other laborers, more of a communal dormitory, right? you obviously don't have an education, since you don't need one. if you said 'no' to any of that, then you are embracing some element of a market based economy. if you pay for something, instead of simply bartering your labor, you embrace market economics. if there's money in your wallet, you are a hypocrite.

kinda makes you wonder though, don't it? why you are posting on a market based capitalistic website? heck, how'd you get that star? by giving money to a for profit corporation? or did you somehow barter your labor to Skinner for membership? you know that Skinner & Co. do this to make a profit, right? that's why there are ads and such? not just to cover expenses, but to put something in their bank accounts. why are you, someone so adamantly opposed to 'market economics' contributing to them here? I don't get it.

[Ken Burch]

44. Oh puhleeze.

I believe there should be some small businesses(many of which could be co-ops). And that state businesses should be managed democratically by the employees, rather than by disinterested bureaucrats.

The issues is letting large corporations back in. That always takes societies to a dark place. The last thing Venezuela needs is Exxon or the rest. That would be the end of anything progressive in that country. You know that as well as I.

Small firms, yes. Corporations no.

[northzax]

64. so what happens when small firms get big?

do they get taken over? and what happens when a private firm has something one of the government firms needs? (like in this case)? who sets the price? the buyer or the seller?

[Ken Burch]

68. At a certain level, you'd redistribute some of the assets

This would also make life easier for people who only wanted to run small businesses. It would take them out of the "grow or die" thing.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. So...

...what's your view of collective union bargaining?

Doesn't that insititution accomplish what you described? It helps set common wages and benefits for workers. Maybe not in accord with the federal minimum wage but certainly within that business.

No offense but your argument is something of a false dichotomy.

[northzax]

80. collective bargaining? great

love it. but every collective bargaining agreement I have ever seen allows for variable pay scales based on various factors (length of employment, position, skills, responsibilities, education, etc) that only makes sense when the people doing the bargaining on behalf of the workers realize that this is what the workers want. they don't want to be treated identically, even though they want identical protections, etc. (which they should have) not common wages for all workers, common wages for all identical workers. so it's still market based. there's still a recognition that, on average, workers with more experience, skill and education are more valuable than those with less.

[Greyhound]

92. Conflating currency with capitalism.

Currency=necessary

Capitalism=beneficial when used to enhance existing social standards.

What we have is not capitalism as established by Adam Smith, it is simply kleptomania.

[northzax]

130. the particular comment I was responding to

was talking about how anyone who supports market economics in any form is also a right winger in every other aspect. i was simply pointing out to him that he engages in market economics every day. in fact, pretty much the only people who don't engage in market economics every day are those in institutions or prisons. it's not the concept of the market that is poor, it's the exploitative manipulation of those markets that causes problems.

[Ken Burch]

133. If you live in the U.S., you have no alternative BUT to engage with the market system

That can't be equated to support OF that system.

And, while there are some business types here with progressive values, there are no anti-Chavez rich people in Venezuela of whom that could be said.

[northzax]

134. Not true

There are certainly ways to seriously mitigate your participation in the Markets, if you so wish. I have an aunt and uncle who live on a commune. They sell just enough to pay taxes, everything else is self produced or bartered. The Amish also barely participate. I have friends who live in a communal living community in the dc suburbs. Twenty people collectively own property, those who work outside the home have their pay put into a central account. Those who don't work for pay barter their labor to earn their keep. It's not, as the song goes, something I'd recommend, but it is a way to live.

[Ken Burch]

137. Well, I use a credit union rather than a bank

I avoid shopping at WalMart, purchase fair trade items when available, so I'm trying to mitigate things. Granted I could do better.

It has to be said, though, that the option of moving to a commune doesn't really exist for people living in the inner cities, the Southwest border areas of the U.S. or large areas of the Deep South. Many in those areas have little option but to be "gears in the machine".

We need to work to help people like THAT get "off the grid" as well.

[Greyhound]

87. You're confusing Democrat with liberal and there's plenty of these

cowards in the party. They left their party instead of fighting off the religious wing-nuts, and came to this one to turn it into GOP 0.1.2 (alpha).

The only requirement to be a Democrat is to say you are on your voter registration.

[naaman fletcher]

91. Actually,

It's the difference between the long-standing beliefs that the Democratic Party has had in this country vs. a small number of marxists who don't mind running countries into the ground as long as nobody ever got to make an evil profit.

[Greyhound]

94. And what "long-standing beliefs" would those be? Equality?

Not unless you are born into the right family and play the game as directed.

Civil rights? All that's fine until it becomes inconvenient and/or you belong to a group where discrimination is generally approved of.

Reproductive rights? Not so much if it "offends" any asshole that can vote against us.

People before profits? :rofl:

FDR's legacy? :rofl::rofl:

Social justice?:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[naaman fletcher]

96. Yes,

We value equality, civil rights, socials justice, etc. and we fight for them. However most of us are not marxists, and we see that Marxism also leads to poverty, and usually leads to gross violations of civil rights and social justice, despite the speeches by Marxist leaders.

[Greyhound]

105. Well you can say that some individuals that identify themselves as Democrats

fight for those things, but the party is totally MIA on these and many more issues like these.

And your position that the USSR was anything other than a military dictatorship is just silly. Next, you'll be holding up Nazi Germany as another example of "Socialism", and telling us that the "good guys" lost in Vietnam.
:rofl:

[naaman fletcher]

107. Oh I see what you are saying,

I didn't realize you were critizing dems as being MIA. I agree. It's not just the USSR. It's any nation where the government controlled industry, unless of course you have an example of where it has worked.

[Ken Burch]

113. Which is worse: government controlling industry,

or industry controlling government, which is what market systems almost always give us?

[naaman fletcher]

118. If you look at..

the standard of living of most people, industry controlling government is obviously better, as bad as it can be.

[ieoeja]

125. Hell, I'll say that the good guys lost in Vietnam.

The South did not invade the North. The invaders won. And in my warped worldview the invaders are usually the bad guys.

I did have to qualify that as I immediately thought of the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in which North Vietnam was definitely the good guy.


Millions of refugees did not flee North Vietnam before the war for no reason. The North Vietnamese government was, and is, a very repressive, abusive government. Ho Chi Minh did not rise to power through a plebiscite (sp?), but through the time honored method of purging all the other Communist/Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist/...ist factions (and assassinating their leaders) during the brief British occupation following WW-II.

Ho Chi Minh's flavor of communism may not have approached the depravity of the Khmer Rouge, but it was still pretty horrible. Much, much more closer to Stalin than Trotsky.

[Ken Burch]

132. The only real "good guys" in Vietnam were the democratic opposition in South Vietnam

But Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon never gave a damn about them. Why the hell did the U.S. HAVE to fight for the ruling elite and refuse ever to push that elite to democratize or end corruption? THAT is what drove a lot of people in Vietnam to back the North-simply the fact that the U.S. had made it clear that it wouldn't tolerate democratic change.

[laughingliberal]

99. That pretty well sums it up. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

117. Look up the term "capital strike"

n/t

[naaman fletcher]

22. Huh?

So you don't think that government policies can cause productivity to fall? If productivity is falling is must be because greedy businessmen are trying to sink the country?

Now, assuming your logic, productivity should not have fallen in the industries that have been nationalized completely, would you agree?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. If those industries were isolated, perhaps.

But when Venezuela's nationalized industries fall into disrepair it implies there is a government policy that causes workers to sit on the butts and do nothing while machinery breaks around them.

That's an accusation against Venezuela and their workers that I am not prepared to make.

Perhaps a more rational explanation would be: c(r)apitalist corporations have decided they don't like the profit margins they get from the nationalized services and refuse to do business within reasonable terms, the logistics dry-up and the workers cannot get the tools and parts they need to fulfill government productivity goals.

If you can show me the Venezuela law that says, "No, don't fix that!" I'll happily accept correction.

[naaman fletcher]

36. It's not an accusation against workers,

to point out that when jobs are guaranteed and nobody is watching performance closely that performance tends to slip. See: The Soviet Union.

[Ken Burch]

40. Do you actually KNOW that nobody is watching performance closely?

Are you assuming that workers aren't capable of doing a good job unless "the boss" is breathing down their necks and memos are always being churned out about punctuality and the way the break room looks?

[naaman fletcher]

54. long, long history..

Every nation founded on your ideas was a failure... see the soviet union.

[Ken Burch]

61. There is nothing in common between Venezuela and the Soviet Union

And thanks for outing yourself as a right-wing redbaiter. Nice to see the true colors.

[naaman fletcher]

69. How am I a red-baiter?

We weren't discussing Venezuela vs. The Soviet Union, we were discussing weather or not workers in nationalized industries stay product. Long history shows that they do not.

The vast majority of Democrats in the United States believe in free markets versus government ownership of industry. Are we all right-wingers?

[Ken Burch]

72. It was red-baiting to invoke "the Soviet Union".

The USSR is not the inevitable result of ANY possible effort to run a society on values other than greed. And there is no possible way that Chavez would ever turn into Stalin.

[naaman fletcher]

82. OK then,

Since the Soviet Union is a bad example of how you would run things, could you please point me to a current or former country that has implemented your ideas?

[Ken Burch]

86. Not a country but a system:

The Mondragon Cooperatives.

And the City of Seattle when the workers ran it during the General strike of 1919(they only had to give it back to the rich because the AF of L forced them too.)

[naaman fletcher]

89. hadn't heard of Mondragon till now...

I will have to read up before I comment.

[laughingliberal]

101. Thank you. I was sitting here shaking my head at the Soviet Union comparison.

Must be the GOP/Joe McCarthy school of history in operation there.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. My dad had to listen to a lot of stuff like that when he was in a union

I'm not calling you a union buster but please consider what you say.

[Ken Burch]

47. Indeed.

Some people think workers ONLY work when someone's kicking their asses. You'd think those people would all be Republicans.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. Ya know...

...I was pondering this thread during lunch.

Why is it we are told workers are too lazy to act in their own interest and be productive...

...SO...

...the only way to make sure they stay productive it to hand them over to c(r)apitalists who--wait for it--make profits because it is in THEIR own interest.

Am I missing something here?

[naaman fletcher]

55. There is a difference between a union,

and a nationalized industry. I am not a union buster. I have worked in union and non-union companies, and have been in management in both. My opinion on unions, by the way, is that the problem is not the pay or benefits, but the work rules. That the work rules make it difficult for companies to be flexible and rapidly adjust to changing market conditions. This observation comes from two industries where we actually paid or workers more than their union counterparts, what we couldn't have was the work rules i.e. guy who drives a truck can't also unload, and stuff like that.

If the unions were a bit more receptive to the changing market conditions, I think they could expand again and get good wages and benefits for their workers.

[laughingliberal]

100. I think your explanation, indeed, looks more likely. nt

[laughingliberal]

95. +1 nt

[Cali_Democrat]

31. Chavez is an EPIC FAILURE.

-20% less oil production than in the 1990's?

-Rolling blackouts?

-35% inflation?

What a socialist utopia! :sarcasm:


Chavez is a complete failure. He has ruined that country.

[Ken Burch]

49. At least he isn't massacring trade unionists for peacefully marching against austerity budgets

like that nice "moderate social democrat" Mr. Perez did.

When you set up a "pro-business" government, you are telling the workers and the poor "Go to hell!".

And when you pose for smiling photos with corporate CEO's, you've forever joined the dark side.

[Cali_Democrat]

57. I'm not concerned about what he's not doing. I'm concerned about what he's doing right now

Because whatever he's doing right now isn't working...that much is clear. The country is suffering while surrounding countries aren't going through such a crisis.

Well hey, at least he's not wielding an ax and killing people.

[laughingliberal]

102. I'd say the unionists in Columbia who are being assassinated are suffering.

But just my opinion, I guess.

[naaman fletcher]

58. Does it have to be either/or?

Must the alternative to Chavez be a guy like Perez?

[Ken Burch]

60. If you're pushing for a privatized oil industry, yes.

That can't mean anything but bringing the old days back.

Now, if you were talking about increasing democratic worker control of management in the state oil industry(a step that would lead to huge improvements)it would be different.

But going to market values always means a hard swing to the right.

[naaman fletcher]

70. My alternative to Chavez would be a good like Lula.

Is he a right winger?

[Ken Burch]

73. He's ambiguous.

Lula was great in opposition, but mainly caved in to the rich and big finance in the policies he implemented as president.

Business and the wealthy should NOT have a veto on what government does.

[naaman fletcher]

76. Yet somehow Brazil is expanding and becoming a powerhouse

while Venezuela sinks further and further.

[Ken Burch]

77. The proceeds of this "expansion" are being held by the few

The poor gain nothing from the austerity budgets or the photo ops with Dubya at the ethanol farms.

[naaman fletcher]

79. Even assuming that is true:

Which I don't believe: Expanding industries mean jobs. How is that worse than Venezuela where there are no proceeds to be held?

[Ken Burch]

85. Again, you're assuming industries can only expand if driven by the self-interest of the few

That does not have to be the case. Expansion can be driven by many factors. And the truth is, with oil prices and supplies diminishing, Venezuela's economy would be in a downturn no matter who was running it. If the oil industry was still private, everything there would be worse for the nonwhite working-class majority.

It's not like anything would be better with MORE sacrifice for the poor and more priveleges for the few. Or deeper wage and benefit cuts to fund shit like "enterprize zones" and "investment zones".

[naaman fletcher]

88. So in Venezuela we should see an expansion

of the industries that are controlled by the government?

Also, your statement that oil supplies are diminishing is false. Oil Production is down, but the amount of proved reserves in Venezuela is increasing.

[laughingliberal]

103. We live in a country where all the gains in the economy have been going more and more to the top

for more than 2 decades and the working and middle classes are disappearing. Why would you doubt that's exactly the effect of neo-liberalism in other countries?

[naaman fletcher]

109. That is true...

And it sucks... but it is still better than living in brutal poverty which is where Chavez is sending Venezuela.

[laughingliberal]

110. I do believe all but the very top in Venezuela were in brutal poverty before he was elected.

I know most of the 'protesters' there are all marching in Armani suits and Jimmy Choos.

[naaman fletcher]

119. well...

1. I think the first 3-4 years of Chavez were great. There was a lot of reform that needed to be made. That being said, I think he has turned into an egomaniac and can't accept that he is not an expert on all matters.

2. It must be a very large "very top" then.

[laughingliberal]

124. No, it is not a very large "very top."

The protesters against Chavez have always been the oligarchs and, of course, they're pissed off. Ours will be pissed off if we ever get serious about working and middle class Americans sharing in the gains in our economy. And the answer is certainly not a return to the wealthy, white supremacists in Venezuela controlling all the money and property again.

[naaman fletcher]

126. Seems to me..

that the protests are very large.. too large to just be the very top. But, I confess there is lots of propaganda and it is hard to tell.

[wuushew]

67. Geology is the primary determinent of oil production

you do this topic a diservice by failing to mention it (If you care).

The North Sea is in a decline equal or worse than that of which you lament.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_LFUba-DjdDM/SswlKYwMvmI/AAAAAAAAAMc/0BEk-wAw18c/s400/North+sea+hubbert.jpg

[Cali_Democrat]

74. What about the 35% inflation and the blackouts?

Countries like Brazil and Chile aren't experiencing that yet their economies aren't oil-based.

Chavez is not a successful leader. He has failed.

[Forkboy]

48. Chavez turned me into a newt.

[MicaelS]

52. What's wrong with Venezuela is Chavez's Cult of Personality

And there are also plenty of people right here on DU who subscribe to that Cult. Who fervently believe, with all the passion of a Christian clinging to the cross, that Chavez is an infallible saint, and anything said against him is an evil conspiracy.

[Greyhound]

75. What's wrong with Venezuela is they've thrown off their local parasites and

and the Global parasite community is worried. What would happen to them if people figured out that they are not only unnecessary, but that without them, life gets way better for everybody (except them, of course). You don't go up against the Kleptocracy w/o paying a heavy price, fortunately they are still willing to keep fighting.

[laughingliberal]

104. Exactly! The global parasites are not happy about being thrown off and don't want anyone else

getting any ideas about it.

[Caliman73]

112. You have set up a false dichotomy

I have no doubts that Chavez has some major flaws in the way he governs and especially communicates, but I also know enough about our media and about the World Bank and IMF to know that their perspective and agenda are very slanted toward privatization and accumulation of wealth onto themselves. It is not strictly either or and you saying that anyone supporting Chavez and the Venezuelan electorate is engaged in a "cult of personality" is a disingenuous at best. .

[Greyhound]

59. LOL! "José Guerra, a former Central Bank economist, The IMF, and

Augusto de la Torre, the World Bank's chief economist for Latin America" say blah, blah, blah. Yep, no agenda there.:eyes:

Yet somehow in each of these hit pieces, the people of Venezuela are not ever mentioned. They seem to like what he's doing and realize that the entire Central Banking and Global Oligarchy is working every day to steal back their resources.

[Ken Burch]

63. Indeed.

This article was just about pimping for the rich.

[Forkboy]

65. Shhhh....we're not supposed to notice any of that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

66. Indeed. No mention of the people or workers and what they want.

It is as if the message to the common people is, "Try not to think of them as chains so much as they're a safety harness for your protection."

:hi:

[uponit7771]

131. LOFL!!! Good point...some here are overt

[Hannah Bell]

62. it's capital strike, spomsored by the us.

[naaman fletcher]

71. How can it be a capital strike in industries where Chavez appropriated the capital? nt

[Hannah Bell]

83. most industries in venezuela are privately held. and the state takeover

was a response to capital strike & capital offshoring rather than the reverse.

[naaman fletcher]

84. So what you are saying then..

Is that in industries that have been taken over, we should not observe a decrease in production or productivity, correct?

[Hannah Bell]

127. when people say "so what you're saying is...." 10 to 1 they're trying to put straw in your mouth.

[bvar22]

97. Venezuelans are STILL in much better shape....

...than under the previous Oligarchy.

Viva Democracy!
We could use some here.

[laughingliberal]

108. We could, indeed, use some here

I really don't like living in the oligarchy.

[gravity]

111. There must be a lot of corruption is Venezuela

if they are spending all that oil, but can't support their own infrastructure.

[GreenTea]

116. Venezuelas heavy crude - not in demand like light sweet crude in a tough world economy.

[murdoch]

129. "In stark contrast to the rest of Latin America" - BS

This article has no basis in reality.

"In Peru...which embrace globalization, growth could indeed go well beyond 4 percent, the IMF says."

As the IMF is the authority cited, I'll use their figures. The Venezuelan GDP per capita is $11k, depending on who you want to believe. The median GDP per capita in Peru is less than $5k. This sentence implies the average Peruvian is doing better than the average Venezuelan, which is certainly not the case, by the IMF's own numbers.

I have been to the Dominican Republic twice, and have experienced a blackout on both visits. Both times I was in a tourist area. Santo Domingo has dogs running around loose and much of the city is in a state of decay. In the semi-rural areas, some of the roads look like they haven't been paved for decades. Where are the articles in the Washington Post decrying this and the long DU threads talking about how the Dominican Republic is mismanaged?

Also - what Forero goes out of his way not to mention is how one of Chavez's main goals, from day one, was pulling back oil production along with the rest of OPEC. Chavez was talking about how he was going to cut back on oil production before he took office. In Forero's telling, this was unplanned, not what Chavez wanted, and is due to incompetence. If you have never read any of Chavez's interviews or speeches where he talked about how he was going to cut back on oil production, and you only read Juan Forero's dispatches, you would never know this.

[WinkyDink]

135. Translation: The have-nots have been getting too much; the profiteers need more.

[bemildred]

138. What a load of horseshit. nt

[ShortnFiery]

139. -Cough- Disinformation! -cough- Propaganda! - Cough - Bullsh*t!