Venezuela's Chavez accuses oil companies of massive tax evasion

[Byzantine Prince]

I dont think people here realize that Cuba is a crappy island in the Carribean. Have you seen some other places in the Carribean? They are all poor like there's no tommorow. So naturally we can't expect Cuba to develop into a Hong Kong economy when it's geo-economic position is so bad.

[Don Corleone]

Actually, despite all of Batista's issues (and yes, I know, there were a LOT of them), 1958 Cuba had one of the highest GDP's per capita in the world. You're confusing the result and the cause. Cuba is poor now because of fiscal mismanagement for the past 46 years.

[Ironside]

Don Carleone

AFAIK it was something before he siezed American assets. That was the issue I'm not 100% certain about thuogh.

But you're not a liar!

As lying is spreading a lie with the intent to lie, and I don't think that of you (and this comment is entirely irrelevant of this thread).

FEEL THAT!!

Edit:
It would be interesting to know how much economic damage the embargo have done though.

And Panzer you want to invade and coup countries to get money (to preserve the American way). Do you have any idea how much that would cost??

Or to show it this way.
The Iraqi war was about oil.
Now use the "we are getting less oil out of it now than before and is losing much more money that we could gain on the extra oil anyway" counter-argument on it.

[Don Corleone]

Well, according to Wikipedia, the embargo was a sort of chicken and egg thing. Originally, Castro announced that he wasn't going to continue to honor American leases. So Eisenhower announced that he was halting all imports of sugar from Cuba into the US. So Castro went and siezed 850 million worth of US investments. And things went downhill from there....

But then again... I'm a LIAR Okay, I promise, that was the last time.

[Crazed Rabbit]

For some reason, I never see the socilists try to defend socialism when directly questioned aobut its problems.

They always just say that capitalism is terrible and socialism will help the poor, without proving anything.

Sometimes arguements are too easy when you have all the facts on your side.

Crazed Rabbit

[The Wizard]

Chavez... don't speak to me too much about that man.

Like any other ignorant socialist that talks incessantly about 'evil capitalism', 'western imperialism', and dreams of 'economical redistribution', where of course his own followers will become the oligarchy, he is a fool and is not to be taken seriously.

I myself know Venezuelans who are vigorously against this communist who doesn't admit his true color. Why, you ask? Because the man had his cronies, oh wait I mean his political supporters, burn their house, he seized their own private monetary possessions that they had on their banking accounts, and is trying to exclude them from economical welfare, only to get that welfare, take it, and give it to his own lapdogs.

These were people who fled from Castro and his communism, to Venezuela. Now, they walk the streets of Caracas protesting against this con artist who is making them remember the nightmares of their flight from oppression again.

That such a man runs one of the OPEC nations is a danger to economical stability in the world.



~Wiz

[LittleGrizzly]

nice sig jag

No he was equating N Koreas economy to S Koreas.

i meant we went from why us economy is better than europes to an example about S + N Korea, i was never saying communism is better than capitalism

We all do. The question is by who. This is what seperates conservatives from liberals.

i meant under the peoples control (through voting in the goverment anyway)

aybe but its unlikely. It certainly isnt the norm. THe governemt doesnt work for its money nor is it very accountable for it. They make nothing.

well privatisation has gone badly here a few times, it can go wrong either way

Controled in What manner? Most oil is imported into countries.

controlled as in owned by the goverment

Should we control Iraqs oil for the benefit of US citizens?

No i think the Iraqis should decide how they control it

Should the US government control our own oil fields?

i think so

We sure do but history does not. Free enterprise and capitalism work the best combined with democracy.

well like i said there have been failures in privatisation and im sure succsesses in nationalisation.

Why do you and Jag and all the other good socialists waste your time hanging around evil corrupt capitalist regimes. Instead of shooting your mouth off, why don't you join the people in Cuba or North Korea or Venezuela? Afraid we might be right???

next time some country has a policy you like more than one in your current country ill be asking why you aren't joining them also.

[PanzerJaeger]

And Panzer you want to invade and coup countries to get money (to preserve the American way). Do you have any idea how much that would cost??

Never said that. There is a lot America could do to undermine Chavez besides invading venezuela.

[Ironside]

And Panzer you want to invade and coup countries to get money (to preserve the American way). Do you have any idea how much that would cost??

Never said that. There is a lot America could do to undermine Chavez besides invading venezuela.

But usually that creates a new mess that needs to be fixed, then again and again.

[JAG]

http://www.counterpunch.com/mutaner05052005.html

Is Chavez's Venezuela Populist or Socialist?

By CARLES MUTANER

"This is the first government that cares for us"

Resident of the municipality of Libertador

Some in the US "left" are to be congratulated for their efforts to highlight the positive changes in education, health care and land redistribution that are occurring in Venezuela since the Bolivarian revolution. Unfortunately, following a cultural tradition of entitlement and righteousness, many US writers are compelled to pass judgment on a Bolivarian process which they barely understand.

From The Nation, Science and Society, to ZNET (except the informative Venezuela Watch), many analysts excuse their endorsement of the Bolivarian process with preemptive critical statements about Hugo Chavez's putative "authoritarian tendencies". If Chavez were the authoritarian firebrand of US commentators he would have already retaliated to the numerous attacks to his presidency and person (death threats, a coup, constant slandering by the media, a lock-out of the whole country, etc). But rather than retaliate or jail opponents Chavez kept calm and won 8 elections in six years, including a referendum last August where he got more than 60 per cent of the votes.

Another common apologetic practice is to undermine the socialist underpinnings of the Bolivarian process with the "populist" label (see Steve Ellner in Science and Society, for example). Following cold war habits, a major concern of the US left is still avoiding any association with regimes that might be labeled "Communist". This is a self defeating strategy as even moderate moves, by Scandinavian standards, towards a stronger welfare state will be labeled as "Communist" (e.g., Guatemala's Arbenz in the fifties).

Take for example Christian Parenti's leading article for the Nation (April 11 2005 issue). Parenti mislabels the current political will of the Venezuelans as "Petro-populism" which suggests that they are merely oil rich; thus, mischaracterizing the nature of their unique commitment to social-democratic reforms such as Mision Barrio Adentro (Inside the neighborhood). Also, contrary to Parenti's viewpoint, the Bolivarian constitution is not committed to capitalism anymore than to socialism: it sees the economic system as a means to improve the life of Venezuelans (see the recent volume by Luis Salamanca and Roberto Viciano Pastor on the Bolivarian Constitution for a detailed analysis).

Furthermore, Parenti's characterization of the Misiones (new government funded social programs) as "forcing" participatory democracy on citizens is unkind and unfair: this process reflects how Venezuelans decided to write their Constitution and organize their country. In that sense, any government "forces" its citizens, one way or another. When a writer relies on exemplars rather than surveys to describe the political attitudes of a population, it is important to choose representative individuals.

In that sense, Parenti's examples should have been more balanced: while the single "Chavista" in his article is portrayed as a "sentimental housewife", the opposition journalist is portrayed as a politically objective and mature democrat. In fact this "loyal" opposition that she represents continues to undermine the government by such actions as making threats to the life of government officials. Finally, Parenti complains about the cold treatment he received at one ministry. But, is it fair to complain when, in spite of being from the US, he still was allowed to interview a cabinet minister and voice his criticisms?

Venezuela's achievements: international socialist cooperation and participatory democracy in health care

While this kind of journalism proliferates, more objective assessments do not find their way into the "left" media. Let's take for example Mission Barrio Adentro (Inside the Neighborhood). Against the recommendations of International Financial Institutions, Barrio Adentro is designed to provide free health care to approximately 17.5 M Venezuelans (about 70% of the population) who previously lacked access. The program includes participative management from community members (following Article 84 of the 1999 Constitution), and increase in ambulatories (more 300 already built up to an expected 5000), and Medical Doctors living in the communities they serve (one MD for 12500 residents).

This program has been possible because of a cooperative agreement between the Cuban and Venezuelan governments. Venezuelan MDs did not want to practice medicine in poor neighborhoods. This is when a Mayor of Caracas and Chavez envisioned a bold public health alternative. Between April 03 and December 03, more than 10 000 Cuban MDs relocated to Venezuelan neighborhoods to practice primary care. These doctors have at least 10 yrs of post graduate experience and 2 yrs of experience in Integral Medicine (which sees health as a social outcome including housing, education, sports, environment, and food security). They perform between 20 and 40 visits every morning plus family visits in the afternoon, in addition to numerous prevention activities. Thus, operating as a separate health care system Barrio Adentro MDs conducted close to 80 Million visits reaching the whole 23 states while the former system achieved only 20 Million, with limited geographical outreach.

In addition, following article 84 of the Bolivarian Constitution, Barrio Adentro is run under the principles of participatory democracy. Local committees (Comites de Salud) chosen by neighbors have the power to directly contact local and federal governments to demand new or improved services for their communities. For example, during visits Cuban MDs and neighbors might realize that residents are in need to literacy courses, dentistry, removal of environmental hazards, thus contacting the appropriate branches of the government to obtain those services.

A recommendation for US analysts

The bottom line is thus simple. Given the recent history of interference of our country with Venezuelan politics (see Otto Reich's piece in the April issue of National Review for a chilling example), writers on the left can help the Bolivarian process with objective reporting or humble supportive analyses. Or they can leave Venezuelans alone. They will do just fine.

Carles Muntaner MD, PhD is a social epidemiologist at the University of Maryland, US. He is currently a health policy advisor to the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Even the 'left' in the US and his 'defenders' over there misrepresent him, no wonder people get so mis informed.

[Lazul]

And Panzer you want to invade and coup countries to get money (to preserve the American way). Do you have any idea how much that would cost??

Never said that. There is a lot America could do to undermine Chavez besides invading venezuela.

and Panzer, what the Hell gives the US the right to undermine other elected leaders?
Would you like the US to do so with every country if it goes socialistic?
And what methods do you think the US has the right to use then? Embargo? Assassination?

man, I wonder how it comes so many hates the US foreign policy!?

I smell egoism on a large scale.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Even the 'left' in the US and his 'defenders' over there misrepresent him, no wonder people get so mis informed.

The poor misunderstood man. All you or this guy has shown is that if you give the poor majority the rich minorities money you will make the majority happy.

We must confront the privileged elite who have destroyed a large part of the world.
Hugo Chavez

What a loon. I suggest the unwashed and poor masses have done a lot more to destroy a large part of the world than the privileged elite. The ivileged elite are the ones who have contributed the most to the world. Again its the typical leftist ploy of going for the lowest common denominator and using class evny. If rich is bad and poor is good why does almost eveyone want to be rich?

[Lazul]

"If rich is bad and poor is good why does almost eveyone want to be rich?"

Couse being poor sucks.

[The Wizard]

Yes? And?

Indeed it is not a very happy situation to live in, but an open market economy gives everybody with a right mind the ability to become prosperous.

Although I do agree that poverty such as frequently seen in the third world does somewhat impair the possibilities of the poor people to climb the economical ladder. But to drown the problems of a nation in a flood of state sponsored, anti-capitalist sentiments is not the solution. Just like economical redistribution superimposed by a central government, as shown in the former USSR.



~Wiz

[JAG]

Indeed it is not a very happy situation to live in, but an open market economy gives everybody with a right mind the ability to become prosperous.

The great capitalist lie.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The great capitalist lie.

Another liar

[JAG]

Out of all western countries, who has the least social mobility - that is poor becoming rich. You guessed it, US and UK. The most capitalist of countries have the least social mobility. Sweden with its socialist reforms of the capitalist system has the best. And even this mobility is limited.

To think that there is any real social mobility for the masses, even if they put in time, is absurd.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Out of all western countries, who has the least social mobility - that is poor becoming rich. You guessed it, US and UK. The most capitalist of countries have the least social mobility

I suppose you can back this up.

The Third Proposition.--The intensiveness, as well as the generality of the vertical social mobility, varies from society to society (fluctuation of mobility in space). This statement is quite evident also. It is enough to compare the Indian caste-society with the American society to see that. If the highest ranks in the political, or economic, or occupational cone of both societies are taken, it is seen that in India almost all these ranks are determined by birth, and there are very few "upstarts" who climbed to these positions from the lowest strata. Meanwhile, in the United States, among its captains of industry and finance, 38.8 per cent in the past and 19.6 per cent in the present generation started poor; 31.5 per cent among the deceased and 27.7 per cent among the living multimillionaires started their careers neither rich nor poor; [14] among the twenty-nine presidents of the United States 14, or 48.3 per cent, came from poor and humble families. [15] The differences in the generality of the vertical mobility of both countries are similar. In India a great majority of the occupational population inherit and keep throughout their lives the occupational status of their fathers; in the United States the majority of the population change their occupations at least once in a lifetime. The study of occupational shifting by Dr. Dublin has shown that among the policyholders of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company 58.5 per cent have changed their occupation between the moment of issuance of the policy and death. [16] My own study of the transmission of occupation from father to son among different groups of the American population has shown that among the present generation the shifting from occupation to occupation is high. The same may be said about the generality of the vertical economic mobility.

Furthermore, the differences in the intensity and generality of the vertical political mobility in different societies may he seen from the following figures which show what per cent among the monarchs and executives of the different countries were "newcomers" who climbed to this highest position from the lower social strata. (See following table.)

COUNTRY


PER CENT OF "UPSTARTS"
AMONG THE MONARCHS
AND PRESIDENTS

Western Roman Empire


45.6

Eastern Roman Empire


27.7

Russia


5.5

France


3.9

England


5.0

United States of America


48.3

Presidents of France and Germany


23.1

These figures may be taken as an approximate indication of the intensiveness and generality of the vertical political mobility from the bottom of the political structure to its top. The great variation of the figures is an indication of the great fluctuation of the political mobility from country to country.

LINK

[Redleg]

Out of all western countries, who has the least social mobility - that is poor becoming rich. You guessed it, US and UK. The most capitalist of countries have the least social mobility. Sweden with its socialist reforms of the capitalist system has the best. And even this mobility is limited.

To think that there is any real social mobility for the masses, even if they put in time, is absurd.

And there is absolutely none in the socialist system - unless you are one of the ruling elite.

Don't kid yourself Jag - the system you are advocating is no better then capitialism - its just different.

[JAG]

And there is absolutely none in the socialist system

Exactly, if the system is working there is no need for it.

Rags seldom turn to riches

Inequality has not been reduced and the government has yet to face up to dismantling Thatcher's legacy

Madeleine Bunting
Monday May 9, 2005
The Guardian

After a bruising campaign, Tony Blair looks and sounds grimly exhausted; the fun has gone out of winning elections. He wouldn't be human if he hadn't been asking himself over the weekend why he hadn't bailed out a year ago: what's it all for? And that is the question which dogs not just him personally and his occupancy of No 10, but also the Labour party's unprecedented grip on power.

Article continues
He has led Labour into the longest period of government in its history. He has secured a third, historic term. But the very scale of this achievement only intensifies the scrutiny of just what Labour has done and plans to do with the power it has proved so adept at winning. What's it all for? Managerial initiatives around public-sector reform won't earn Blair accolades in the history books. There is a jarring mismatch between the huge success at the ballot box and the timidity of how Labour has used that power to reshape this country and the life chances of future generations.

That timidity emerged starkly in two recent reports, which warranted much more soul-searching within the Labour party than they got in the election rush. It's crucial that they get to the top of Blair's in-tray because they offer a damning indictment of a government that claims to be progressive.

The first charge against Labour came from the Institute of Fiscal Studies' annual report on poverty and inequality. While it confirmed the much-celebrated fall in child poverty and pensioner poverty, it went on to chart inequality and pointed out that although it has been falling since 2001, it is falling so slowly that it has only managed to reverse the rise between 1997 and 2001. Its bitter conclusion is that the "net effect of seven years of Labour government is to leave inequality effectively unchanged".

Labour has succeeded in redistributing some wealth from the middle classes to the poorest, but it has done no more than halt the trend of increasing inequality. What has been left intact has been the huge wealth and income growth built up under the Tories in the 80s and 90s.

Let's be clear about what is at stake: the sharp rise in inequality between 1979 and 2001 was unprecedented in Britain and internationally. Only New Zealand ever came close to Britain's dramatic deterioration and it wasn't sustained there over such a long period. By 2002-03, the top 10% in income distribution in the UK got more of the total share of income than the bottom 50%. The top 1% had a bigger share of income than at any time since the 30s. In international comparisons, Britain was second only to the US. Look at "marketable wealth", such as housing, and the figures since the mid-90s are much worse.

The rise in inequality and the appalling rate of child poverty were the most pernicious legacies of the Tories. They reversed half a century of increasing equality. The consequences of that inequality in terms of lost life chances for several generations of children brought up in poverty and for sharply increasing health inequalities were spelt out in the course of the 90s in volumes of definitive research. That evidence played a crucial role in shifting the British electorate towards Labour in the mid-90s. As the British Social Attitudes surveys showed, the vast majority of people, more than 80% by 1996, thought the income gap too big.

The scale of the challenge for Labour when it came into power in 1997 was huge. No one expected it to be turned around in a term - restoring inequality to 1979 levels was a project that would take a generation. But in 2005, after Labour has been in power for eight years, it's shocking that there has been no progress. The fact that throughout the eight years of Labour government inequality was higher than it had ever been under Thatcher seems an astonishing political failure for a progressive government.

Questioned on the issue by the Commons liaison committee this year, Blair's mealy-mouthed response was that "sometimes figures can be misleading about the gap between the wealthy and the poor". He has lamentably failed to grasp the issue, yet the public anxiety about inequality has held pretty steady since the 90s across the political spectrum - 82% still think the income gap is too large (among them a remarkable 71% of Tories). Here was a political consensus that a progressive government could have championed.

The second report is arguably even more disturbing. The myth used to legitimise inequality in the US and the UK is the "rags to riches" story of social mobility. It's a myth that assuages the guilt of the privileged while giving (illusory) hope to the aspirational. It's a myth that makes great telly, which is why we were all cheering on Tim Campbell and Saira Khan in BBC's The Apprentice.

But away from reality television, the chances of making it from the bottom of the heap to the top in the UK are tiny and have got much worse since the immediate postwar period. A son born in the 50s had a chance of improving on his father's income and position. A generation later, that chance was smaller, according to the Sutton Trust's study of intergenerational mobility in which the UK bumps along with the US at the bottom of the international league. Furthermore, the expansion of higher education since the late 80s has done nothing to improve mobility. Those who get to enjoy the opportunities it brings are not drawn from across the British class system but from a disproportionately large slice of the affluent middle classes. Given the introduction of tuition fees, the danger is of mobility seizing up altogether.

Equality of opportunity is the leftwing equivalent of a dog-whistle issue. It's the kind of subject that stirs up backbenchers and party members to real passion. I believe them when they say it's what keeps them in their horrible jobs, pilloried by the public, ignored by their leadership. What I can't understand is why they've given Blair and Gordon Brown such an easy ride on the issue, and have been willing to be fobbed off with improvements on child and pensioner poverty. The hope is that now, emboldened by a slimmed-down majority, they might be more assertive.

Geoff Mulgan, in his recent, elegantly brutal assessment, accuses New Labour of not facing up to the most powerful interests - "the London media, the super-rich, big business and the City". It is they who form the tiny minority with the most to lose if Thatcher's legacy was to be finally dismantled, and, for example, the top rate of tax raised. New Labour, Mulgan concludes, didn't offer "a strategy for transformation. It was mainly a way of winning elections."

Reducing inequality and increasing equality of opportunity are strategies of transformation. Blair has no more elections to fight and nothing left to lose - he is in the last-chance saloon - in providing a more fitting political epitaph for a progressive government than Mulgan's.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Imstill waiting for you to back up your statement

Out of all western countries, who has the least social mobility - that is poor becoming rich. You guessed it, US and UK. The most capitalist of countries have the least social mobility

[Don Corleone]

Out of all western countries, who has the least social mobility - that is poor becoming rich. You guessed it, US and UK. The most capitalist of countries have the least social mobility. Sweden with its socialist reforms of the capitalist system has the best. And even this mobility is limited.

To think that there is any real social mobility for the masses, even if they put in time, is absurd.

Jag, just to be clear, is this your opinion or are you making an assertion that you can provide verifiable evidence on?

If we have such an ironclad system of 'rich favors rich', why are Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, Warren Buffet and the rest all self made? I mean, believe it or not, dropping out of school and working out of your parents garage does NOT qualify as being given everything on a silver platter in my book.

[Byzantine Prince]

Don Corleone, you don't pick 10 or even 100 people as examples of self made riches. We are talking about hundreds of millions of people here do you ever stop to think about this in economic terms?

[Don Corleone]

Hundreds of millions of people DO increase their net worth. If your point is that you didn't get to be CEO of your company working exactly 40 hours a week and hanging out at the water cooler.... "B" "O" "O", "H" "O" "O".

Not everyone can be the leader. In capitalism, those who provide the results get to be that way. In socialism, you artificially hold everyone back and the state appoints somebody to tell the company what to do. I don't want any parts of that. Trust me, I wouldn't work 65 hours a week or do half the travel I do if I was only doing it to make the party official rich, or if the jerk down the hall who naps in his cube all day made the same I do. So do I get paid more than somebody who has the same job I do? Yes!! Horrors!!! As abhorent as you and Jag find that, there's a good reason for it.... I create a lot more wealth for my company then he does.

Why is merit based reward such a horrible concept to you?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I create a lot more wealth for my company then he does.

Capitalist pig

[Don Corleone]

Oink, oink baby.

[Byzantine Prince]

In economics you don't create anything. Money is not made, it is simply transfered. It's all an illusion. Compare what you make with what a hollywood actor makes. Let's say you make 150,000 dollars a year. A hollywood actor who in my opinion has the easiest job in the world(memorize lines and say them in a beleavable way) makes 25,000,000 million dollars a movie that can take a year or sometimes less to film! Sure this is an extreme but there are plenty of jobs in America that are far easier and that get paid a lot more. I beleave garbage men in the Boston suburbs where I visited get paid somewhere in the 80,000 dollar mark a year each! You think you work harder then most people but are you sure about that, I can think many specific jobs that are far harder to get into(a lot of education) and pay a little over the average mark. It's not all as linear as you are trying to make it out to be. It's the most complex system in this earth and it's as fragile and unreal as our thoughts, which is basicalyl why communism is so great(excluding political structure).

And NO party members don't get paid more then anyone else. That is the little myth you like to throw around. Everyone regardless of education and position is allowed their own livelyhood.

[Redleg]

And NO party members don't get paid more then anyone else. That is the little myth you like to throw around. Everyone regardless of education and position is allowed their own livelyhood.

LOL - then explain why every party member who is a leader in a socialist country dress better, has a private driver, lives in better housing, and has more disposable income verus the common worker.

Yea Right socialism is a better system then capitialism.

[Don Corleone]

I agree, there are people who work a hell of a lot harder than I do that make less. There's also people who don't work as hard, that make more. In their cases, and in mine, we are all free to market our services for what we think is the best price. If I thought I had the kind of appeal it takes to be a movie star, then maybe I'd do it.

But let's look at individual job classifications for a second. Take any one you want. You're not going to motivate a movie star or a garbage man to work any harder when you tell him no matter how hard we works, he's going to be rewarded the same as the slackass.

Oh wait, I forgot, in your perfect world, you're going to follow everyone around and torture people that don't work hard enough. (Or were you going to shoot them, I forget).

And if you think finance doesn't create capital, think again. It's the only way wealth is created, by the funding of investment capital. If you don't understand this, I suggest you go pick up "Econcomics 101" and read about wealth generation. You are right that all other endeavours, including my own of electionics, is merely transforming potential wealth to realized wealth. I suppose a more accurate statement from me would have been "I convert more oppurtunity into realized value than my coworkers".

[Byzantine Prince]

LOL - then explain why every party member who is a leader in a socialist country dress better, has a private driver, lives in better housing, and has more disposable income verus the common worker.

Yea Right socialism is a better system then capitialism.

Yeah have you seen Castro's snazzy new olive green crap suit?!? It's fantastic, I wish I had one of those, it would look great if I picked garbage for a living! ROFL!

Or remember all of Stalins great suits? You know the plain crap ones and those white ones he wore on special occasions.

Quit dillusioning yourself Redleg, Communists leaders have always been paid equally with everyone else. Yeah they might be driven is fancy cars sometimes, but do they own them? No. The state owns them, they simply run the state and so are allowed to use that material. It's not like Bush personally pays for his cars and shofers to drive him everywhere.