View Full Version : Venezuela's Chavez accuses oil companies of massive tax evasion
CARACAS, Venezuela, May 06, 2005 (AP WorldStream via COMTEX) -- Many oil companies operating in Venezuela have failed to pay large amounts of taxes, and the government may charge some companies retroactively, President Hugo Chavez said.
He said there has been "massive evasion" by both foreign and Venezuelan companies, and that some have declared losses to avoid paying taxes.
"The billing in this case could be retroactive," Chavez said Friday in a televised speech, referring to a recent tax increase.
Last month, the government adjusted the tax rate on 32 oil operating agreements to 50 percent, up from 34 percent, saying the oil firms were paying a cheap industrial rate.
Chavez didn't mention any specific companies, but said the problem of tax evasion applied to many of the oil firms in Venezuela.
He said the 50 percent rate was "fair," and that tax authorities may have to begin calculating the amount oil firms avoided paying in the past.
"They were paying (a rate) as if it were an electrical product," Chavez said.
He also said there has been a "campaign" of false information about the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. since the announcement of the tax increase.
Chavez held up several folders, saying they were the result of government intelligence overseas to recover past agreements with oil companies in which Venezuela's interests suffered.
He also said Venezuela's oil production is at 3.3 million barrels a day and that officials aim to reach 3.4 million barrels a day this year.
Independent analysts say Venezuela, the world's fifth largest oil exporting country, actually produces about 2.6 million barrels a day.
see here (http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/0/2/66222920.html)
It be interesting to see what reaction this "Tax Issue" will cause in Washington. It is very like to raise the price of oil in the short term as least.
Someone wasn’t smart enough when the initial oil deals were struck.
On my list Venezuela is 6th on the export ranking with 2.23 mill barrels a day. They produce 2.58 mill barrels a day.
Don Corleone
05-09-2005, 11:54
Chavez is a kook. He had agreements saying the tax rate was 34%, and now that he doesn't have enough money in his cookie jar, he's going to go back and retroactively force everyone to pay 50%? I pity the poor Venezuelan people, with leadership like that, they're going to be going under in no time. A pity, really, one of the richest countries in the world, in terms of resources per capita, is going bankrupt because Chavez is so crooked.
LittleGrizzly
05-09-2005, 12:29
He had agreements saying the tax rate was 34%, and now that he doesn't have enough money in his cookie jar, he's going to go back and retroactively force everyone to pay 50%?
I didn't get that from the article, it looked in the article that they had tax outstanding at the old rate and the rates are going up, you don't accuse companies of tax evasion if they were paying the rate set.
This seems to be getting into a little trend first putin now chavez always picking on the little guy eh ?
Don Corleone
05-09-2005, 12:32
Chavez said explicitly that he was billing oil companies retroactively on the 50% rate. In 2 years, when his government is still broke and his people are still starving, he's going to 'retroactively raise' the rates again, to 62.5%. This is all a step on his path towards nationalizing all of the oil resources.
And who was picking on Putin? I haven't mentioned him in a long, long time. And I'd hardly call him 'a little guy', no matter how much sympathy that evokes for your position.
LittleGrizzly
05-09-2005, 12:39
ahh didn't now it was retroactively being done...
This is all a step on his path towards nationalizing all of the oil resources.
a good move i'd say.
And who was picking on Putin? I haven't mentioned him in a long, long time. And I'd hardly call him 'a little guy', no matter how much sympathy that evokes for your position.
sorry i wasn't clear, i meant putin did something similar to this, Yukos or something the company putin did it to was called ?
ohh and by little guy i didn't mean putin or chavez i meant the ceo's of the oil companies and i was being sarcastic.
Don Corleone
05-09-2005, 12:43
This is all a step on his path towards nationalizing all of the oil resources.
Aaah yes, the command economy, as practiced by the Soviets, the Cubans and the Maoists has been such a success, time and time again. Yet, in 10 years, when Venezuela is bankrupt, Chavez has absconded with all of their cash, and the people are starving, it'll be you Leftists claiming it's all capitalism's fault and we owe it to them to rebuild their country and offer them IMF loans (that they shouldn't have to pay back). Looking at the whole cycle like that, maybe I'm wrong... maybe income redistribution does work... Socialists piss all their money away and Capitalists come along and give it back to them.
LittleGrizzly
05-09-2005, 13:04
I wasn't suggesting nationalisation of all industries just this one, (important services and resources like oil health ect.)
Aaah yes, the command economy, as practiced by the Soviets, the Cubans and the Maoists has been such a success, time and time again. Yet, in 10 years, when Venezuela is bankrupt, Chavez has absconded with all of their cash, and the people are starving, it'll be you Leftists claiming it's all capitalism's fault and we owe it to them to rebuild their country and offer them IMF loans (that they shouldn't have to pay back). Looking at the whole cycle like that, maybe I'm wrong... maybe income redistribution does work... Socialists piss all their money away and Capitalists come along and give it back to them.
ehh... I think you will find socialistic oil-nations on both ends of the scale, some of them with an even healthier economy than the US (I am not talking size here).
Griz, don't let Don talk you round to believing half truths and down right lies.
Chavez stands up for his people - the working class people and he is making their lives better. He is pro workers not pro big business and so the US media, US govt and US people demonise him. He is a great man, long may he reign and he will with the huge support of his people he has.
Carry on Chavez just to keep seeing the Americans reactions.
Chavez is just doing the right thing. So im with JAG on this one. :bow:
Crazed Rabbit
05-09-2005, 16:58
Are you guys aware of what is happening in Venezuela?!?!?!?
That protest against the government will get you jail time?
That speaking against the government will get you jail time?
That Chavez is a DICTATOR?!?! (http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200505070444)
You guys really do live in a dream world.
Griz, don't let Don talk you round to believing half truths and down right lies.
Chavez stands up for his people - the working class people and he is making their lives better. He is pro workers not pro big business and so the US media, US govt and US people demonise him. He is a great man, long may he reign and he will with the huge support of his people he has.
Carry on Chavez just to keep seeing the Americans reactions.
Half truths? Is that why US capitalism makes it the strongest economy in the world, easily beating all the socialist European countries? Is that why the US triumphed over communist Russia?
I notice supporters of socialism never cite history as evidence that socialism works.
And you say he's made their life better? Please. If some people rally in support of him, its because they've been lied to.
a good move i'd say.
Nationalism is always a bad move. It removes the incentive for the company to improve by removing all competition and forcing the people to use that company, no matter how terrible the service is.
It is also stupid to give the government to much power. You would not allow a group of men to control all the resources in a country, so why would you allow the government, which had even more power then, to cut off dissent by denying resources.
Essential resources especially should be kept out of the hands of government.
Crazed Rabbit
LittleGrizzly
05-09-2005, 17:13
Half truths? Is that why US capitalism makes it the strongest economy in the world
of course being the only world power not devastated after WW2 has nothing to do with it....or having a huge a country full of natural resources... nope its all because we have tax paid healthcare... must be
If some people rally in support of him, its because they've been lied to.
yeah he doesn't do anything for the poor masses which voted him in they just been lied to, (sarcasm) like bush as well just falling for lies
Essential resources especially should be kept out of the hands of government.
i disagree, essential resources should be kept out of the hands of buisnessmen and put into the hands of the elected representatives, in a dictatorship on the other hand i might prefer a buisnessmen in charge.
Nationalism is always a bad move. It removes the incentive for the company to improve by removing all competition and forcing the people to use that company, no matter how terrible the service is.
That is not true if nationalism is a goal in itselve.
Crazed Rabbit
05-09-2005, 17:33
of course being the only world power not devastated after WW2 has nothing to do with it....or having a huge a country full of natural resources... nope its all because we have tax paid healthcare... must be
Ever heard of the Marshall plan? Besides, the war ended 60 years ago, and that's plenty of time to catch up. You can't use the war excuse.
But let's look at yet another example: Korea. Both North and South were blasted by war after the Korean war, and equal in terms of economy.
The South adapted democracy while the North stayed communist. Now South Korea has a very good economy, and the North can't feed its people. To really see the difference, look at a night satellite image of Korea. You can see the divide by where the lights cut off.
yeah he doesn't do anything for the poor masses which voted him in they just been lied to, (sarcasm) like bush as well just falling for lies
Well, what proof do you have of him doing anything for the masses? If the masses support him so much, why did he just buy 300,000 assualt rifles from Russia?
i disagree, essential resources should be kept out of the hands of buisnessmen and put into the hands of the elected representatives, in a dictatorship on the other hand i might prefer a buisnessmen in charge.
Why do you disagree? Can you respond to the points I've made about the failure of nationalization?
And why should representatives take charge of businesses? They don't know anything about the businesses and could not run them as well as businessmen. Private companies seek to put out the best product for the lowest price. Government agencies are filled with red-tape empowered bureacrats who want to assert their power by tying up things, and who have NO INCENTIVE to improve. Now, which one is better for the consumer?
Crazed Rabbit
Don Corleone
05-09-2005, 18:18
Griz, don't let Don talk you round to believing half truths and down right lies.
Chavez stands up for his people - the working class people and he is making their lives better. He is pro workers not pro big business and so the US media, US govt and US people demonise him. He is a great man, long may he reign and he will with the huge support of his people he has.
Carry on Chavez just to keep seeing the Americans reactions.
EDIT: Language changed per moderator's requrest. Intent remains the same.
Well Jag, just when I think I'm getting to know you, you find a way to surprise me. I thought more of you than resorting to baseless accusations, but thanks for enlightening me.
While I have at times been incorrect, and have publicly acknowledged this upon being proven wrong, I do not lie. For you to claim that I do is vile and you have ceased to have any respect in my eyes. I don't think somebody like you can possibly understand how angry such an accusation would make me, but in my book, it's right up there with calling me a child molester.
Next time, don't be a hypocrite and post me well wishes on my birthday if you truly think so little of me.
Rabbit:
Well, what proof do you have of him doing anything for the masses? If the masses support him so much, why did he just buy 300,000 assualt rifles from Russia?
Well sweden buys war-materials from eastern europe to... so the I must be living in a dictatorship?
Ever heard of the Marshall plan? Besides, the war ended 60 years ago, and that's plenty of time to catch up. You can't use the war excuse.'
as far as I know Europe doesnt have much economical problems (western europe that is). Western Europe is just like the US divided into small nations. South America has economical problems, but thats not so strange since the western world keeps screwing them over more or less.
But let's look at yet another example: Korea
comparing Venezuela to North Korea? thats a bit to much.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-09-2005, 18:58
Being rich is bad, says Venezuela's Chavez
April 15 2005 at 11:47AM
Caracas, Venezuela - Buy and sell, wheel and deal, but don't get rich.
That's the advice to businessmen from Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a self-proclaimed revolutionary who wants to develop a new form of socialism to fight poverty in the world's fifth biggest oil exporter.
"Being rich is bad, it's bad. People who are rich, who have a lot of money should donate all of that," Chavez told a conference for small business owners.
Chavez, an ally and admirer of Cuba's Fidel Castro, often presents his left-leaning policies as an alternative to "savage capitalism". Since his 1998 election, he has increased public spending on a raft of social programmes for the poor.
But critics accuse Chavez, the son of rural school teachers who rose to political fame by leading a botched military coup, of trying to copy Cuba's communist system in Venezuela.
They say he has increased state intervention in the economy and squeezed private business with currency and price curbs.
"I don't want money. Really, when I leave here, there'll be a shack or a hammock waiting for me somewhere," said Chavez in a sharp business suit. "I don't want anything for myself."
Yes this giy has a real good head on his shoulders. Like most leftisit his intentions maybe good but I bet in the end he will cause disaster for his country just like Castro did to Cuba.
Crazed Rabbit
05-09-2005, 19:24
Well sweden buys war-materials from eastern europe to... so the I must be living in a dictatorship?
Did I say that Venezuela was a dictatorship just because they bought 300k new rifles? NO! It is just one part of what he has done. For crying out loud, stop setting up stupid ittle straw men.
as far as I know Europe doesnt have much economical problems (western europe that is). Western Europe is just like the US divided into small nations. South America has economical problems, but thats not so strange since the western world keeps screwing them over more or less.
What about the aging population and the need to give them handouts for the rest of their lives? How will the economies support it? Besides, the point was that their economies are tiny compared to the US.
comparing Venezuela to North Korea? thats a bit to much.
Um, no....N. Korea is what happens with full-tilt communism. And Chavez is trying to implement communist policies.
Crazed Rabbit
Barrio Adentro
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Barrio Adentro ("Inside the neighborhood", or "Into the neighborhood") is a government-sponsored Venezuelan program to provide free health care and dental care to poor and traditionally underserved communities. The project includes the construction of medical clinics and accomodations for doctors in both urban and rural districts that previously had little or no access to health care, importation and payment of thousands of Cuban doctors, and the training and retraining of thousands of Venezuelan doctors, both in Venezuela and in Cuba. The Venezuelan government claims that 18 million people, or nearly 70% of the population, has been treated through Barrio Adentro.
The program started in March, 2003 in the Libertador neighborhood of the Venezuelan capital Caracas, and has expanded rapidly to the rest of the country. At least 15,000 Cuban doctors have been put to work in Venezuela, where they are paid about $250 per month, less than private doctors earn in Venezuela (and less than Venezuelan doctors were offered to participate in Barrio Adentro), but considerably more than they were paid in Cuba. Venezuela, in exchange, is providing Cuba with oil at below market rates. This is one of many such partnerships Venezuela and Cuba have made, to provide Cuba with oil and Venezuela with professionals and expertise.
Venezuelan political opponents of President Hugo Chávez and his Movement for the Fifth Republic party have charged that the Cuban Barrio Adentro doctors are agents of the ruling Communist Party of Cuba invited by Chávez to propagandize the Venezuelan population. The Venezuelan Ministry of Health claims that it was unable to find a large enough supply of adequately-trained Venezeulan doctors willing to provide free care in poor areas. The Venezuelan Medical Federation (FVM) has lobbied against the plan, filing a lawsuit in an attempt to prevent the Cuban doctors from praticing medicine, arguing that they are unlicensed.
The program has drawn international praise from the Latin American branch of the World Health Organization, and representatives from Saudi Arabia have visited Venezuela to study the program in order to consider implementing similar programs in their own country.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1370
An Oil-for-Aid Deal that Really Works
By: Marina Jiménez - Znet
Berta Rabelo remembers the day her life changed forever. It was March 14, 2004, when a neighbour dropped by her tin-roofed shack to tell her that a doctor had opened a clinic a few doors from her home in Barrio La Esperanza, a shantytown in the southern hills high above the glass skyscrapers of downtown Caracas. In her 72 years in the barrio, Ms. Rabelo had never seen a doctor venture into this zone of open sewers, dirt pathways and armed drug lords, even in an emergency. "I could not believe it," she says.
And the man wasn't even Venezuelan. Dr. Eliecer Hernandez, 32, had come to one of the country's poorest neighbourhoods from Cuba. He made daily house calls - for example, visiting Ms. Rabelo every two weeks to take her blood pressure and check on her hypertension. The treatment and medication were absolutely free.
His presence is part of a controversial "oil-for-doctors" program that has seen 15,000 Cuban medics set up clinics in Venezuela's slums in the past 18 months, and at least 53,000 barrels of Venezuelan oil a day delivered to their cash-strapped, embargo-beset homeland. Properly called Barrio Adentro (Inside the Barrio), the program is the brainchild of Latin America's two maverick presidents, Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. It was launched in March, 2003 - to many complaints.
"They are not doctors, they specialize in politics," Duglas de Leon, president of the Venezuelan Medical Federation, declared to a local newspaper. He obtained a court order prohibiting Cuban doctors from working in Venezuela, but the government appealed and the court ruled the program could continue while the case was argued.
Today, the Cubans staff 300 clinics in the most indigent and inaccessible parts of a country that is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter but starkly split between rich and poor. The Pan-American Health Organization has come out in favour of the program, and plans to make it a model for other countries.
The largest deployment of Cuban professionals since Angola in the 1970s, it is a feather in the caps of Cuba's 78-year-old Communist leader and Venezuela's 50-year-old populist president.
As well, it has helped to revive the political career of Mr. Chavez and his mix of militarism and socialist ideals. In April, 2002, after only three years in power, he was briefly ousted in a coup led by disaffected military and business leaders. He was reinstated in two days, but a year later the government's approval rating stood at just 35 per cent.
Since then, Mr. Chavez's support has increased significantly among the poor, who make up 70 per cent of his 23 million people. In August, he won 59-per-cent approval in a referendum on his presidency. By that time, according to Tomas Ra mos, the director of health in Caracas, 17 million Venezuelans had been treated by the Cuban doctors. Cuba, in turn, benefited from the heavily subsidized Venezuelan oil, which accounts for about one-third of its energy consumption, accord ing to a recent paper by the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban Studies. Cuba receives the daily 53,000 barrels of petroleum products with up to 25-per-cent financing, payable over 15 years at 2-per-cent interest after a two-year grace period. In reality, there is little ex pectation that the billion-dollar oil debt will ever be repaid.
In the bowels of Barrio La Esperanza, patients such as Berta Rabe lo hear little of the political debate. Before this, no government services had ever reached this slum, which is without plumbing, garbage collection or electricity. Dr. Hernandez volunteered for the mission, leaving his home in Holguin on Cuba's west coast. He says most of the health problems here are wholly preventable ones that vaccines, a better diet and proper sanitation could cure. Con cerned that Ms. Rabelo's diet was high in fat, for instance, he signed her up for a government soup-kitchen program. Volunteers now deliver daily meals of rice, beans, broccoli, carrots and meat.
Other patients have gastrointes tinal and respiratory illnesses, skin lesions, head lice and high blood pressure caused by a diet rich in fat.
"I never imagined that people's misery could be so acute. It's different in Cuba. I've seen illnesses here that no longer exist in Cuba, that is how abandoned the people are here," he says. For example, he re cently treated a young child for congenital syphilis, transmitted by mother to baby.
Dr. Hernandez's assignment may last as long as five years, and he hopes that he will be permitted soon to bring his wife and baby to join him in the clinic. The Chavez government pays him $200 (U.S.) a month, plus room and board - in Cuba, he earns only $40 a month. On a typical day, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., Dr. Hernandez runs the clinic with another physician and a Cuban dentist. They spend late afternoon and early evening clamouring up and down the steep stairs built into the winding hills, visiting pregnant women and patients too frail to come to the clinic. "The idea is to have doctors to look at our patients as people and not as a product, or a way to make money," he says.
That may be the case on the ground, but for the country's leaders, the arrangement is very much about money as well as power. In 2003, Mr. Chavez reorganized the country's state-owned petroleum company, replacing 19,000 striking workers with government loyalists and cementing his control over the oil-for-doctors program, which many former employees opposed. Last year, Mr. Chavez even appointed his brother and political mentor, Adan Chavez, to head Venezuela's Cuban embassy, to deepen the "brotherly" relationship between the two countries. "The economic stability of the Castro regime depends to a great extent on the fate of Chavez's rule in Venezuela," conclude the authors of the University of Miami paper.
"The loss of its Venezuelan bonanza would be economically, if not politically, unbearable. And that is something Castro is not going to let happen."
Marina Jiménez is a senior feature writer with The Globe and Mail
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1330
Weighing the Revolution: The Limits of Social Spending, the Need for Structural Change in Venezuela
By: Jonah Gindin and Claudia Jardim - Venezuelanalysis.com
In a recent article published on www.counterpunch.org, retired Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, James Petras attacked what he described as the common habit of both right and left in “substituting myths about the Chávez government rather than confronting realities.” Petras is currently in Venezuela to participate in an intellectual conference “In Defense of Humanity” aimed at debating and discussing strategies for opposing neoliberalism and American imperialism.
Last August Hugo Chávez roundly defeated a referendum on his mandate as President of Venezuela. A historic level participation gave Chávez 60% to the opposition’s 40%--a powerful victory that gave Chávez’ government significant momentum going into regional elections on October 31st. While voter-participation was certainly less than historic in the regional elections, candidates allied to Chávez came away with a near-sweep, resulting in what is now being to referred to as the ‘red map’ of Venezuela.[1]
In the context of these two powerful votes of confidence, Chávez has called for a new stage in the Bolívarian revolution (his process of social and political changes concentrated on the 70% of the country living under the poverty line). This new stage, “the revolution within the revolution,” has so far been characterized by introspection and self-criticism on the part of the government, and stunned silence, with one tragic exception, on the part of the opposition. That silence has been punctuated only once, by the most radical and reactionary wing of the anti-Chavists, with the assassination of state prosecutor Danilo Anderson.
The ‘In Defense of Humanity’ conference aims on the one hand to foster discussion, debate, and the promotion of concrete strategies to oppose the ‘new world order’ across the global ‘south’. But an obviously hoped for byproduct is a similar paring of debate and concrete proposals specifically related to Venezuela. In the context of ‘deepening the Bolívarian revolution’, and of the intellectual conference, Petras elaborates on what he sees as the limits of the Venezuelan revolution.
James Petras was invited to Venezuela to participate in the "In Defense of Humanity" conference, held December 1-5 in Caracas
Credit: Jonah Gindin
In ‘Myths and Realities’ you draw a parallel between former-President of the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Hugo Chávez. Specifically you refer to Chávez’ ‘Bolívarian revolution’ as a set of ‘New Deal’ social-democratic reforms. Is there no revolutionary content to Chávez’ movement?
There is a difference, Chávez is very active in terms of stimulating organization, but Roosevelt legalized trade unions, he recognized the right to collective negotiation. So there are differences, Chávez is oriented towards the urban poor more so than towards already organized, unionized sectors. I also think that Chávez looks for policies that stimulate nationalist, anti-imperialist sentiment, while Roosevelt was on a specifically anti-Fascist wavelength. So there is a parallel, I’m not saying they coincide in every respect, but they share a form of denouncing the oligarchy without transforming property relations…
I say Roosevelt in the sense of promoting social changes without changing the structures of capitalism. I don’t think Chávez has any intention of changing the relations between capitalism and the state—including foreign capital. On the contrary, I think he’s forging more links will different capitalists in different countries. And he continues to pay the foreign debt, which is not a model for any government, whether they’re reformist or revolutionary…I respect Chávez’ social programs that are raising the living standards of Venezuela’s poor. But I think we must recognize the limits that define this politics…
During the opposition oil strike in 2002-03 many companies acted as political agents, rather than economic ones. workers took over some factories that had closed in support of the strike. And the workers began occupying factories, or at least protesting—optimal conditions for intervention [by the government], and to transform them into self-managed, public enterprises, etc… But [Chávez] didn’t do it. Because it’s not in his concept of how an economy should be. He believes in a mixed economy. The big difference with Chávez is with social spending. He thinks [corporations, the wealthy] should pay taxes, and he should provide social services. But in my opinion the question is: how can this be?
Given that the majority of the population works in the informal sector[2], after 6 years in government they have not made the necessary large-scale public investments to create new employment. They depend on the private sector to make those investments and generate employment. Venezuela is mired in unemployment and sub-employment, when they should invest the immense resources to generate employment through public works, instead of waiting for the private sector to do it for credits and incentives. Because [the private sector] is not doing it, they are not disposed to make the large-scale long-term investments necessary. Along with great advances [in Venezuela] in health, housing, education the problem of employment remains very grave. Ultimately, this cannot be solved by social spending, it requires large-scale public investment…..If workers continue working in precarious conditions, with low salaries, the families of these workers live poorly. They live with better services, but they live poorly nonetheless. Social services are essential, but I think we must address the root of the problem, we must provide well-paying, stable jobs, so that social services improve people’s lives, rather than being substitutes for the structural changes necessary for them to have a decent life….
I think the left, like the right, exaggerates [Chávez’] degree of radicalism for two reasons. First, in the face of what Latin America represents today, with Lula, Mesa, Guttierez [Presidents of Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador, respectively] obviously [Chávez] is a person who is passing legislation beneficial to the popular sectors. He has launched a land-reform, while in Brazil they’re stimulating agro-business. And also in external politics is where I think we could say that Chávez has consistently taken relatively radical positions. Radical in the sense that they reject the aggressive policies of the US, criticizes and opposes the FTAA [Free Trade Area of the Americas], he is against the invasion of Haiti, and is looking to form some kind of alliance with other recalcitrant governments of Latin America.
[1] The color red is associated with Chávez and his ‘Bolivarian revolution’, so-named after the Latin American independence leader Simón Bolívar.
[2] Exactly 50% as of October, according to Ministry of Labor statistics.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1233
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1170
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1232
It goes on and on... Read them, you might learn something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%E1vez
Social programs
Venezuela under Chávez has started numerous social programs: Barrio Adentro, an initiative to provide free health care to poor and underserved areas, Mission Robinson and Mission Sucre to increase literacy and basic education. The literacy programs are centered on learning to read and understand the Venezuelan Constitution and their inherent rights as Venezuelan citizens. These programs have been criticized as inefficient and incomplete by opposition figures but are widely heralded and appreciated by Chávez backers.
Chávez speaks at an camp. (Photo: Marcello Jr/ABr)
Enlarge
Chávez speaks at an MST camp. (Photo: Marcello Jr/ABr)
Many of these programs involve importing expertise from abroad; Venezuela is providing Cuba with 53,000 barrels (8,000 m³) of below-market-rate oil a day in exchange for the service of hundreds of physicians, teachers, and other professionals. (BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4035787.stm)
[edit]
Land Reform
The Ley de Tierras ("Land Law"), passed by decree in November 2001, created Plan Zamora to enact land reforms in Venezuelan agriculture: taxing unused landholdings, expropriating unused private lands (with compensation), and giving inheritable, unsellable land grants to small farmers and farm collectives. Venezuela has seen a vast disinvestment in its rural areas since oil wealth was discovered; the country has an urbanization rate of more than 85% and it is a net food importer. The rationale given for this program was that it would provide incentives for the repopulation of the countryside and provide "food security" for the country by lessening dependence on foreign imports. There are three types of land that may be granted under the program: government land, land which is claimed by private owners, but which the government disputes their claim, and disused private land. To date, only the first two types of land have been distributed.
[edit]
Media
All of the five mainstream TV networks and most major mainstream newspapers oppose Chávez, but a small minority of the media is said to support him. Chávez claims the opposition media is controlled by the interests which oppose him, whereas the media accuse him of having intimidated journalists with his pronouncements and of allegedly sending gangs to threaten journalists with physical violence.
In 2005, the Chávez government announced the creation of Telesur, a proposed Latin America-wide television network to compete with CNN en español and Univisión.
[edit]
Labor
Chávez has had a combative relationship with the nation's largest trade union confederation, the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), historically aligned with the Acción Democrática party. During December 2000 local elections, Chávez placed a referendum on the ballot to force internal elections within unions. The referendum, condemned by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) as interference in internal union matters, passed by a large margin on very thin turnout. In the ensuing elections, Carlos Ortega declared victory and remained in office, whereas Chavista candidates declared fraud.
The Union Nacional de los Trabajadores (UNT, National Workers' Union) is a pro-Chávez union federation which has been growing during Chávez's presidency, with some pro-Chávez unions disaffiliating with CTV because of their strident anti-Chávez activism and affiliating with the UNT. In 2003, Chávez sent UNT representatives to an ILO meeting, rather than CTV.
On January 19, 2005, Chávez nationalized Venepal, a paper- and cardboard-manufacturing company at the request of its workers. The company had gone bankrupt and participation in the general lockout in 2003 was its final undoing. Workers occupied the factory and restarted production, but following a failed deal with management and amidst management threats to sell off equipment, Chávez ordered the nationalization, extended a line of credit, and ordered that the Venezuelan educational missions (see above) purchase paper products from the company.
Wow what a dictator!!!! My arse.
As for you Don, I will call you a lier when you blatantly lie about a man who is proposing real change for the poor in his country, real living standards increasing for those deprived for decades of hegemonic upper class corrupt democratic rule. You hate him because he doesn't let the US big business walk all over his country. You will not - and never - find me apologising for my remarks to you in this thread, they are fully deserved. If you do not like it - or loose any respect for me - tough, I don't give a damn.
Don't get on the high horse of moral rightousness there Jag - its not all roses for Chavez in Venezuela - he has made several mistakes that you just want to gloss over. Corruption is still very bad under Chavez and his government.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1270
Maybe so, but if you look at the corruption pre Chavez it was worse. I am not denying everything is perfect but it is a damn sight better than it was and ordinary people are benefitting, those so oppressed for decades pre Chavez. We should all applaud him not peddle popular lies about him.
PanzerJaeger
05-09-2005, 23:25
Socialists like Chavez are dangerous and should be put down, especially in this hemisphere. Where is he CIA?
Maybe so, but if you look at the corruption pre Chavez it was worse. I am not denying everything is perfect but it is a damn sight better than it was and ordinary people are benefitting, those so oppressed for decades pre Chavez. We should all applaud him not peddle popular lies about him.
I personally don't have a problem with what Chavez is trying to do for his country - after years of right wing facists running the country of Venezuela - socialists principles might make a difference for the poor masses. However don't think Chavez is a darling or a saint - remember he first tried to come to power the same as all other right wing facists that ruled Venezula before - through a military coup.
Socialists like Chavez are dangerous and should be put down, especially in this hemisphere. Where is he CIA?
No they are no more dangerous then some of the right wing dicators that we do support in South and Central America. After some more thought on the matter - I am beginning to tend toward a more isolationist view is necessary for the United States. The United States needs to only focus on the issues that directly effect our government and our way of life. There are other oil exporting countries that can supply our oil - maybe at a higher price - but so what, the price of oil does not equate to our distrubing what that nation's people decide that they want for a form of government.
(Waiting for the why did you not hold this view for Iraq - different scenerio and that I have the opinion that we have been in a state of war with Iraq since 1992 when Iraq first violated the cease fire agreement.)
Politicial assignation by the government is wrong - illegal (since after the Vietnam War) and if ever proven would equate to a high crime that would call for the dismantling of the adminstration that ordered such an execution.
Edit: And I would start a grass roots campaign to impeach any president that formulated such a policy and it was discovered. (hell it might have been done since 1973 - but I don't know of any actually evidence that supports a theory of a politicial assignation ordered by the President since then. That Bag of dirty tricks should be behind us.)
Gawain of Orkeny
05-09-2005, 23:49
Whats going to happen when he taxes the rch out of existance. Then where will he get jis money? Again I predict this will work no better than anyother communist socialist state. He may improve things in the short run but the people of Venezuela will pay a heavy price in the future. Every cmmunist dictator was first hailed as a savior of the people. In every case the people are worse off today.
PanzerJaeger
05-09-2005, 23:52
The right wing dictators were not dangerous to us. They cooperated.
You know another socialist who did everything "for the good of the people"? Castro. We dont need another Castro in the western hemisphere. Who will he find support from this time? The chinese need oil and their party line is close enough to Chavez's.
The right wing dictators were not dangerous to us. They cooperated.
You know another socialist who did everything "for the good of the people"? Castro. We dont need another Castro in the western hemisphere. Who will he find support from this time? The chinese need oil and their party line is close enough to Chavez's.
Again so what - the nature of capitialism is compatetion (SP?) if China offers Venezula a better price for their oil - so be it.
You can not have it both ways Panzer - if you believe in Capitialism - you have to allow the market of fluctuate even when the fluctuation is caused by a national government going into a socialist state - or selling to your direct competation.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 00:06
As for you Don, I will call you a lier when you blatantly lie about a man who is proposing real change for the poor in his country, real living standards increasing for those deprived for decades of hegemonic upper class corrupt democratic rule. You hate him because he doesn't let the US big business walk all over his country. You will not - and never - find me apologising for my remarks to you in this thread, they are fully deserved. If you do not like it - or loose any respect for me - tough, I don't give a damn.
Alright, I'm going to address this one last time. Then, you can call me any name you can dream up. I just wish that you'd have the spine to act with a little consistency, either I'm a lying fascist or not.
I said he had retroactively slapped a 50% tax on oil exports. I didn't claim that, the article did. I predicted that it wouldn't be the last time he tried that trick.
I then said in 10 years, after he would have stolen all of the cash reserves, don't come bitching to us to bail them out. That's a prediction, not an assertion. I thought you were intelligent enough to note the difference. This article here shows that the man has a proven track record of putting his hand in the cookie jar: Venezuela has at least 2billion discrepancy in oil revenues (http://deportes.eluniversal.com/2005/05/08/eco_art_08202A.shtml) English Tranlation (http://deportes.eluniversal.com/2005/05/08/eco_art_08202A.shtml)
From that, somehow you feel free to degrade my character and accuse me of being a liar, that I willingly make false statements against somebody. For the record, I don't hate Hugo Chavez, but I do think he's a blight on his people and I think when his work is done, it will be us capitalists whom you appear to despise so much that will be left to pay the bills.
Why do I think that about Hugo Chavez? Well, beyond the 2 billion he's alredy made off with, he has no respect for property rights. He has eliminated the democratic tradition in his country. He has made bedfellows of Castro & Saddam Hussein. And after 7 years at the helm, his beloved people are no better off. Don't take my word for that, your beloved BBC documenting his abuses: Hugo Chavez in the BBC's eyes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1925236.stm)
So again, call me any name you want to. I'm sorry you can't stand to see your sacred cows called to task, but honestly, were I you, I'd find better Marxist heroes then this Castro wannabe.
Alright, I'm going to address this one last time. Then, you can call me any name you can dream up. I just wish that you'd have the spine to act with a little consistency, either I'm a lying fascist or not.
.
Don't worry about it Don just toke it up to you get to take a cheap shot at him next time he quotes or uses any of his "known" facts on something.
I do believe Jag is wrong in calling you a lair for the simple fact that you are talking about Chavez personal ethics and dealings - where Jag seems to be focuses on what Chavez has done for the poor masses in Venezula.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 00:24
where Jag seems to be focuses on what Chavez has done for the poor masses in Venezula.
What he ignores is the real cost of doing this.
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 00:25
Again so what - the nature of capitialism is compatetion (SP?) if China offers Venezula a better price for their oil - so be it.
You can not have it both ways Panzer - if you believe in Capitialism - you have to allow the market of fluctuate even when the fluctuation is caused by a national government going into a socialist state - or selling to your direct competation.
It really depends on what is more important - American interests or Chavez's.
We are not in the 90s anymore, China is competing with us everywhere. If we want to keep the same standard of living we have for our children, we cannot let our interests around the world go down the gutter for the sake of idealism.
We need to return to the cold war mentality and realize how fleeting our power could become if we dont protect and consolidate it.
Cuba went socialist and it caused the US untold troubles.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 00:38
I do believe Jag is wrong in calling you a lair for the simple fact that you are talking about Chavez personal ethics and dealings - where Jag seems to be focuses on what Chavez has done for the poor masses in Venezula.
Actually, even according to the BBC, after 7 years of 'proposing real change' as Jag puts it, his people aren't any better off.
And I'm not all that hot under the collar anymore. In a way Jag, I should thank you. All my life I've had this 'red flag' mentality about people calling me a liar. This evening, when I wrote my last response, it dawned on me... if that's the best you can do, call me a liar without giving one instance of me having lied, I must have really struck a nerve. Viva la revolucion, Hugo's hungry.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 00:45
All this guys doing is the classic leftist wealth redistribution trick knowing that the poor masses far outnumber number the rich elites. It cracks me up how it seems thew left would like the world to be run either by those in life who are failures or at best average. Its nothing more than class envy. Only a fool could fail to see it. Didnt every other communist dictaor sound basicly the same as this turd.
Again so what - the nature of capitialism is compatetion (SP?) if China offers Venezula a better price for their oil - so be it.
You can not have it both ways Panzer - if you believe in Capitialism - you have to allow the market of fluctuate even when the fluctuation is caused by a national government going into a socialist state - or selling to your direct competation.
It really depends on what is more important - American interests or Chavez's.
We are not in the 90s anymore, China is competing with us everywhere. If we want to keep the same standard of living we have for our children, we cannot let our interests around the world go down the gutter for the sake of idealism.
We need to return to the cold war mentality and realize how fleeting our power could become if we dont protect and consolidate it.
Cuba went socialist and it caused the US untold troubles.
Well in this I will have to say I believe you are wrong - we can not attempt to destroy South American governments because we believe we know what is best for their nation. Let them sort out their own problems - the amount of oil that Venezula produces can be replaced by another source if necessary - be it another country's oil or better yet another energy source.
China has to be allowed to compete - to do otherwise is counter to Capitalist principles.
I don't see a need for the United States to try to maintain its power through taking over the governments of other countries unless its absolute necessary for our security - or for our national interest. Taking out a foreign leader of a friendly government because we don't like their socialist agenda is not what we need to do. Its posturing on your part to even suggest it, and a failed policy at that. It didn't work the numerous times we tried it in Central America during the 1960-1980's. Let Venezula sell their oil to China - it does not lessen our ability to function or purchase oil elsewhere.
OPEC controls the price of oil by - not China nor the United States. Let the Chinese suffer the constraints of OPEC like the rest of us have been since the formation of that organization.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 00:56
Actually, I have to agree with Redleg on this one. I think Chavez is the latest in a long line of Latin American conmen, Leftist and Rightist, that have kept South America from ever developing. It's a pity that this latest outbreak occurred in one of the more advanced nations down there, but hey, as I always say about France, they must be free to act in what they believe to be their own best interests. If the Venezuelan people wish to be duped, let them be duped. In time, when they've had enough, they'll rise up. Until then, we should leave them be. If we don't like the terms we're getting from Venezulean oil, we should leave. Less consumers at the buying table will drive the price of oil down, exacerbating Chavez's problems.
As far as China goes, PJ you're talking about them as though there's something we could do other than compete with them... I hate to break it to you, but if the American people don't learn from their past successes and failures, and continue to provide added value beyond that over other workers in the world, we don't deserve our standard of living. It's not a reward or a right, it's a sign that we have a competitive economy that requires it's workforce to be the most productive in the world. When they're not, they shouldn't exhibit that sign anymore.
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 01:12
In my opinion, your opinion would be correct if we were living in 1940s America, but we are not.
I wonder if you realize just how tenuous America's situation is in the world. Im no economist but it doesnt take one to see that a raising cost of living and exportation of industry is hard to sustain. Things like losing our low oil prices around the world only compound that problem.
In America factory work is "above" most people, well maybe not the work itself but the pay. Our standard of living has been sustained in a large part by our interests over seas.
It might be easy to say now that its wrong to meddle in South America, but when your children live worse off than you did at their age because our bubble of excessive spending and exportation of non-service jobs, you may think again.
Of course Venezuela is just a tiny factor in the more broader problems of our economy, but every little bit counts and if we cede our influence in that country, a domino effect could ensue. And i dont think China would think twice about picking up the pieces of our broken trade system.
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 01:14
I was responding to Redleg and forgot to quote him, but i suppose my response stands toward Don aswell.
In my opinion, your opinion would be correct if we were living in 1940s America, but we are not.
Careful Panzer because what you are advocating is exactly that 1940's and 1950's mentality that got the United States in trouble in many of the South and Central American countries. IF one does not understand history's lessons one is doomed to repeat them. Politicial assianations and the bag of dirty tricks routine has been tried in South America many years ago - it didn't work then and it will not work now.
I wonder if you realize just how tenuous America's situation is in the world. Im no economist but it doesnt take one to see that a raising cost of living and exportation of industry is hard to sustain. Things like losing our low oil prices around the world only compound that problem.
I know very well how tenuous America's situation is - we have done it to ourselves. If we do not learn from our mistakes and fix our industry - then our country deserves to fail - because the path we are headed in is not one that the founding fathers invisioned when they formed our government.
In America factory work is "above" most people, well maybe not the work itself but the pay. Our standard of living has been sustained in a large part by our interests over seas.
Wrong word I believe - most people in the United States would feel that its beneath them to work in the factory - or work in several other fields - one of the reasons many industries are moving elsewhere is because our labor force has begun to price themselves out of a job. Once again Capitialism at work.
It might be easy to say now that its wrong to meddle in South America, but when your children live worse off than you did at their age because our bubble of excessive spending and exportation of non-service jobs, you may think again.
I am thinking about my children - meddling once again in South and Central America equates to the necessity to have armed forces in those areas - I don't want my child having to fight in a war - where history has shown that the policy you are advocating has failed.
Of course Venezuela is just a tiny factor in the more broader problems of our economy, but every little bit counts and if we cede our influence in that country, a domino effect could ensue. And i dont think China would think twice about picking up the pieces of our broken trade system.
No Panzer - the domino effect happens when we don't fix our economy here in the States. What happens overseas and elsewhere regarding our trade and industry is because, we the United States have allowed our society to become lazy - verus the hard working and industrial people that my parents and grandparents were.
Chavez is a kook.
A pity, really, one of the richest countries in the world, in terms of resources per capita, is going bankrupt because Chavez is so crooked.
Yet, in 10 years, when Venezuela is bankrupt, Chavez has absconded with all of their cash, and the people are starving, it'll be you Leftists claiming it's all capitalism's fault and we owe it to them to rebuild their country and offer them IMF loans (that they shouldn't have to pay back). Looking at the whole cycle like that, maybe I'm wrong... maybe income redistribution does work... Socialists piss all their money away and Capitalists come along and give it back to them.
Lies. All bollocks. I will not apologise for calling this crap you have trouted out - via your lovely media and administration - for what it is - rubbish lies.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 01:34
Sing it louder brother, you're making my day. Yes, the beloved BBC is on Bush's payroll. :wink:
No need to sing it louder my point has been made.
Anyway PJ, I am so glad you will now get to learn the way forward by your southern hemisphere comrades. What with more and more countries standing up for themselves as they see the benefits of a planned, fair and redistributive economy, you might have to start to understand the situations reality rather than ignore it. Democracy is a wonderful thing! ~:cheers:
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 01:41
No Panzer - the domino effect happens when we don't fix our economy here in the States. What happens overseas and elsewhere regarding our trade and industry is because, we the United States have allowed our society to become lazy - verus the hard working and industrial people that my parents and grandparents were.
I think the gist of our conversation can be boiled down to this. If you would like me to respond to some or all of your answers just let me know.
Now to my response to the above quote:
I completely agree with you on principle, but principle doesnt buy me a new computer game.
I agree with you that the majority of Americans have become lazy and probably dont deserve their standard of living, but we can sure as hell preserve it as long as we can.
I know how selfish it sounds, but i enjoy coming here every day and posting at the org. I work hard for what i have, but i also know that many people in the third world probably work harder for what they have.
Realistically, not ideally , we should do whatever we can to prevent our nation from falling into economic catastrophe. The politicians will never state the obvious - Americans need to work harder and cut the excessive spending - they will however expand our global interests if we allow them to do so.
Again, i dont want to see my (future) children living worse off than i do. I dont want to see communist China as the worlds superpower.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 01:43
Anyway PJ, I am so glad you will now get to learn the way forward by your southern hemisphere comrades
Yeah their way ahead of us and dissapearing into the sunset LOL. You really need a good dose of reality. Ill give you about thirty or forty years before it sinks in.
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 01:47
Anyway PJ, I am so glad you will now get to learn the way forward by your southern hemisphere comrades. What with more and more countries standing up for themselves as they see the benefits of a planned, fair and redistributive economy, you might have to start to understand the situations reality rather than ignore it. Democracy is a wonderful thing!
Exactly which countries in the world have benefited from a a planned, fair and redistributive economy?
Look at modern day Cuba and then look at the cuban community in Miami that came over to this country even more poor than those in Cuba itself. 40 years later which group of cubans have a higher standard of living?
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 01:53
Hey hey hey now... no raining on Jag's parade with reality here folks. The evil Titan America is about to fall, and all it's wealth will come spilling out to Jag and his pub buddies like candy from a pinata.
Jag thanks man. I take back what I said about you. I respect the hell out of anyone who can provide so much entertainment in one day. ~:cheers:
discovery1
05-10-2005, 02:14
Look at modern day Cuba and then look at the cuban community in Miami that came over to this country even more poor than those in Cuba itself. 40 years later which group of cubans have a higher standard of living?
At least some of them were the the highest members of the pre-Castro Cuban economic ladder. I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to evacuate at least some of their assests. Now if you could break it down in those Cubans and their decendents that arrived within a year of Castro coming to power and those that came after, you would hold more weight. Not to say your wrong. I would find it hard to imagine that someone with the energy to cross the straits couldn't do reasonably well here, at least after a few years.
Cuba have a better and fairer health care system than the US. Though they might not have the US wealth they have other benefits, you are very wrong to merely measure peoples worth and societies worth by how much people earn.
PanzerJaeger
05-10-2005, 02:26
At least some of them were the the highest members of the pre-Castro Cuban economic ladder. I wouldn't be surprised if they managed to evacuate at least some of their assests. Now if you could break it down in those Cubans and their decendents that arrived within a year of Castro coming to power and those that came after, you would hold more weight. Not to say your wrong. I would find it hard to imagine that someone with the energy to cross the straits couldn't do reasonably well here, at least after a few years.
How many cubans do you think came here already rich? Can you give a percentage because i would say it would be in the single digits.
Cuba have a better and fairer health care system than the US. Though they might not have the US wealth they have other benefits, you are very wrong to merely measure peoples worth and societies worth by how much people earn.
Have you ever been to Cuba Jag? I have been to Cuba and i have lived in a heavily cuban area of Miami.
You call people lyers in this thread - well i am going to have to call you a lyer for misrepresenting Cuba. Those people live in abject poverty compared to the cuban communities in the US. How many US cubans do you think are going without proper healthcare?
The vast majority of people in cuba live in crappy houses with crappy furniture. Everything is old and dirty. The basic things of life, water, electricity, heat are all shoddy at best.
And if you do not accept that Cuba is worse off than cuban american society, lets take a look at any of the other socialist states that ever existed.
Were people in Russia better off than in the US? How about a comparison between Eastern Europe and Western Europe during the communist period. Asia is exactly the same way. Compare Japan with any of the socialist asian states that existed or the few that still exist.
You will find the same result. The standard of living is much worse in those countries that have chosen to go down the socialist road.
discovery1
05-10-2005, 02:27
Cuba have a better and fairer health care system than the US.
Fairer, probably, but BETTER? I find that extremely difficult to believe, considering they have been isolated from the West, where most cutting edge medical advances have happened, for so long. Hmmm, it looks like I'm blaming us for this, but that wasn't my intention.
you are very wrong to merely measure peoples worth and societies worth by how much people earn.
To a degree(artists spring to mind), but I think you'll find that the minimum wage earner is far more expendible than a brain surgeon or CEO(well a good one) for that matter.
Cuba have a better and fairer health care system than the US. Though they might not have the US wealth they have other benefits, you are very wrong to merely measure peoples worth and societies worth by how much people earn.
Turn about by Don would be fair given this statement by you Jag - be careful of calling someone a lair who uses information that while baised can be seen as creditable - when you are making statements based upon little know facts or figures. But out of sheer belief that Cuba has to have better and a fairer health care system.
In this instance Jag - you are showing a hypocrisy far worst then Don's so called by you lie.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 03:14
Oh now come on Redleg. This is the best fun I've had in weeks. Yes, Jag, you're absolutely right. I'm a despicable liar. Castro is a genius. The Cubans are the happiest people on the planet. One day, all us mean nasty capitalists will be locked away in a mill somewhere, forced to work 18 hours a day to pay all good people's bartabs. If I told you otherwise, I'd be a LIAR ~:cheers:
You need to use Jag's statement in your signature there Don - then it remind you how right Jag is every time you review something you post.
~:grouphug:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 03:24
I wonder if Jag was in need of an operation if he would choose to go to Cuba or the US for the procedure ?
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 03:25
I said the man was funny and entertaining. That's a far, far cry from showing the insight and wisdom of a Corleone.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 03:32
You need to use Jag's statement in your signature there Don - then it remind you how right Jag is every time you review something you post.
I remember one of the fiirst tv political talk show hosts back in the 70s. His name was Joe Pine and he was a real rightwinger. When someone would make a statement like
'Cuba have a better and fairer health care system than the US. ' He would say'Can I have that laminated for my wallet' to someone off stage. ~;)
I missed this one first time bye
Though they might not have the US wealth they have other benefits
OK Ill bite. What benifits do they have that we dont?
LittleGrizzly
05-10-2005, 03:35
Ever heard of the Marshall plan? Besides, the war ended 60 years ago, and that's plenty of time to catch up. You can't use the war excuse.
while there could be some long term advantadges, but size is another factor
But let's look at yet another example: Korea. Both North and South were blasted by war after the Korean war, and equal in terms of economy.
your eqauting european economies with the north korean one ? nationalising some industries doesn't equate to communism...
And why should representatives take charge of businesses? They don't know anything about the businesses and could not run them as well as businessmen.
i would say its more important to have direct control over certian areas.
Private companies seek to put out the best product for the lowest price.
could the goverment do the same ?
Government agencies are filled with red-tape empowered bureacrats who want to assert their power by tying up things, and who have NO INCENTIVE to improve.
well in the case of things like oil i think its an important resource so it should be controlled for the benefit of the country, also with healthcare so the goverment can be held accountable.
Now, which one is better for the consumer?
i think we disagree on that.
discovery1
05-10-2005, 03:37
OK Ill bite. What benifits do they have that we dont?
Things are more equal(not that that's really a good thing considering), everyone has access to 'free' healthcare(nvermind relative quality and that the good stuff I believe can't be bought at government pharmacies) and I think the literacy rate is higher(by how much probably not a lot).
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 03:41
Things are more equal(not that that's really a good thing considering), everyone has access to 'free' healthcare(nvermind relative quality and that the good stuff I believe can't be bought at government pharmacies) and I think the literacy rate is higher(by how much probably not a lot).
Things are more equal how? There's less of a deviation in average income per household? Fine. What's the disparity between somebody in Castro's regime and the net average. Then compare that to the difference between a Senator or a Cabinet member to the US average.
Everyone has access to 'free' healthcare.... okay, so if the government tells me to come back in 2 years to have my throat tumor removed, but they'll pay for it, I should be grateful?
The literacy rate is higher? Really? This one comes as a shocker. Could you provide some numbers on that one, por favor?
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 03:43
your eqauting european economies with the north korean one ? nationalising some industries doesn't equate to communism...
No he was equating N Koreas economy to S Koreas.
i would say its more important to have direct control over certian areas.
We all do. The question is by who. This is what seperates conservatives from liberals.
could the goverment do the same ?
Maybe 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 in the case of things like oil i think its an important resource so it should be controlled for the benefit of the country
Controled in What manner? Most oil is imported into countries. Should we control Iraqs oil for the benefit of US citizens? Should the US government control our own oil fields? I certainly hope that day never arrives.
i think we disagree on that.
We sure do but history does not. Free enterprise and capitalism work the best combined with democracy.
discovery1
05-10-2005, 03:51
Cuba stuff (http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2553) Socked by the health data, not that numbers of beds per thousands matter if those beds aren't cleaned often. Not they aren't just that these numbers may not tell all.
1. Cubans spend less time at school. Just 81% of the potential population is enrolled in secondary school — compared to 97% in the United States. Enrollment in "tertiary" institutions like colleges and universities is just 15% of the rate in the United States.
2. However, the literacy rate in Cuba is only one percent lower than in the United States. And even though Cuba is a much poorer country, classes are smaller.
3. On average, there are four to five fewer pupils per teacher in both primary and secondary schools in Cuba.
Ok, nearly as good as us. Fail miserably at higher education. Big surprise right?
Things are more equal how? There's less of a deviation in average income per household? Fine.
That's what I was thinking of. And yeah, the higer ups probably do have much better standard of living relative to most of the people.
Everyone has access to 'free' healthcare.... okay, so if the government tells me to come back in 2 years to have my throat tumor removed, but they'll pay for it, I should be grateful?
everyone has access to 'free' healthcare(nevermind relative quality and that the good stuff I believe can't be bought at government pharmacies)
I don't know. Probably not considering the situation presented.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 03:54
Even assuming your data is correct, I think it goes more to proving our point that things aren't all that nice in Cuba then towards yours that things are as good if not better.
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 03:55
Communism=good
Consevativism=bad
That's what I learned from all of this. ~:cheers:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 03:59
That's what I learned from all of this.
Well looks like you will be repeating this grade again next year then ~D
bmolsson
05-10-2005, 04:00
This Chavez dude doesn't seem very nice.....
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 04:01
Now come on Gawain. You can't blame the kid, he's never earned a paycheck. Nobody can be a conservative while other people are paying their way. That's what makes them socialists. ~D
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 04:01
Well looks like you will be repeating this grade again next year then ~D
Depending on who the teacher is. I'm sure uncle Stalin would give me 100% ~D
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 04:02
This Chavez dude doesn't seem very nice.....
You LIAR
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 04:04
Depending on who the teacher is. I'm sure uncle Stalin would give me 100% ~D
Here's what I don't understand BP. 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??? ~D
Presented with a source, you dismiss its credibility because you can't dismiss what it shows. It is great.
And I live where I live, I want to change my system, not leave and abandon my fellow workers in the UK, what good does that solve? Plus it is not piratical at this point in time.
For all the crocodile tears you shed Don, you certainly throw the abuse around like anyone else.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 04:20
you dismiss its credibility because you can't dismiss what it shows.
What does it show other than if you have the power you can rob from the rich and give it to the poor and a whole bunch to yourself while your at it.
And I live where I live, I want to change my system, not leave and abandon my fellow workers in the UK, what good does that solve?
It gets you to live in a country where they have a system you say you approve of. I thing the Commonwealth will get along without you. Heck move to Cuba and become rich, famous and powerful and then return to England to clean up the stinking capitalistic mess .
Plus it is not piratical at this point in time.
No one is asking you to becaome a pirate ~D
Hey we will take up a collection for you to go there. You can take advantage of their free eductaion system over there and give your mom one less mouth to feed. ~:)
Next time I will make sure I make a point of commenting on all your typos ~;)
The UK is moving into a more social democratic phase year by year, it is taking a horribly long time but still the majority of people still support a Labour govt which advocates and puts into practice active redistribution of money to the poor and a welfare state geared for the poorer over others. We are getting there.
Next time I will make sure I make a point of commenting on all your typos ~;)
The UK is moving into a more social democratic phase year by year, it is taking a horribly long time but still the majority of people still support a Labour govt which advocates and puts into practice active redistribution of money to the poor and a welfare state geared for the poorer over others. We are getting there.
And now talk about the if there is a coresponding increase in crime, social unhappiness, and education levels. From what I read of Britian's overall status - it does not seem all that favorable toward the socialist utopia that you are wanting to get to.
Same thing in Venezula - while they are most likely better off as a group then they were under the right wing thugs that Chavez replaced - however remember he got his raise to fame from an aborted and failed military coup where he attempted to take over the government.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 04:35
Next time I will make sure I make a point of commenting on all your typos
Be careful because if theres anyone here who can equal or top me in typos its yourself. Or how about statements like this
what good does that solve
What kind of question is that? How do you solve good? That aint no typo my friend ~;) If your speaking of my pirate remark lighten up its a joke. Come on I never heard anyone say piratical before. Doesnt it sound like acting like a pirate You know like how Tyranical is acting like a tyrant. ~D
bmolsson
05-10-2005, 04:35
You LIAR
~:grouphug:
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 04:36
Presented with a source, you dismiss its credibility because you can't dismiss what it shows. It is great.
Not quite sure what you're referring to here. I said that the numbers Discovery posted don't instill a burning desire to move to Cuba in me.
And I live where I live, I want to change my system, not leave and abandon my fellow workers in the UK, what good does that solve? Plus it is not piratical at this point in time.
Aah yes. No point in moving to Cuba and sponging off of those who have none. Better to be in a system of income redistribution where you have none, but somebody else does.
For all the crocodile tears you shed Don, you certainly throw the abuse around like anyone else. Not sure what you mean here either. I haven't thrown any baseless accusations your way chief. Sure, I got a little sore when you called me a liar, but I'm over that. Tell you what. I work for a living, you're a good socialist, how about if I buy you a beer. You can even claim the system is working towards you're masterful goals, if it'll make you feel better. ~:cheers:
bmolsson
05-10-2005, 04:37
Just for the record, I do believe that the choice of being treated in Cuba or in US should be based on your access to major credit cards and bank balance. US is better than Cuba as long as you got the money. I got that so I would chose US...... ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 04:42
Just for the record, I do believe that the choice of being treated in Cuba or in US should be based on your access to major credit cards and bank balance. US is better than Cuba as long as you got the money. I got that so I would chose US.....
Well you couldnt be more wrong. You could be an illegal alien here and recieve better treatment here than Castro himself probably gets in cuba and not pay a cent for it. The US is better than Cuba whether your rich here or poor. In fact our poor are probably better off as far as things like operations go than most rich people in Cuba if their are any that arent part of the government. You like many are cluless as to how we handle health issues here.
Crazed Rabbit
05-10-2005, 04:55
Now you're saying Cuba's a paradise?!?! And just when I thought it couldn't get any crazier...
Actually, this reminds me of a little anecdote I read about; 3 couples were eating dinner. One was Cuban. Another couple, after finding out they were Cuban, begin spouting praise for Fidel and saying what a wonderful country Cuba was, with such a good healthcare system, etc., etc. The Cubans looked at them, aghast, and asked incredously if they really believed all the propaganda Fidel printed. The liberals refused to be beaten by hard, solid facts from someone who had lived there and stammered on a bit about the high literacy rate until another person asked why the Cubans had left Cuba. They answered that they had been oppressed. The liberals finally shut up then.
And JAG- all your articles claiming the Venzuelan poor are better off are based entirely on the claims on the dictator. One article even says that the fraudulent referendum that went entirely opposite of opinion polls was a real, solid election. How can you be so clearly ignorant of what is going on?
And I live where I live, I want to change my system, not leave and abandon my fellow workers in the UK, what good does that solve? Plus it is not piratical at this point in time.
'Fellow workers'?! LOL! Somehow, I think you have less in common with mine workers than latte drinkers. And besides- you don't need a computer. IF you really wanted to help the poor in England, you'd give up all your worldly possesions and travel around supporting socialist causes, instead of arguing that Chavez is a nice guy with people who obviously are much more aware of the world than you.
The UK is moving into a more social democratic phase year by year, it is taking a horribly long time but still the majority of people still support a Labour govt which advocates and puts into practice active redistribution of money to the poor and a welfare state geared for the poorer over others. We are getting there.
The majority in the UK, but not in England. And by what right does the government have to take money from people who have worked hard to earn it and give it to lazy bums who won't get off their fat butts and work? Are the poor more deserving of wealth because they contribute nothing?
How can you expect to have an economy that grows if you take money from people who work and create and give it to those who are nothing but parasites? What makes you think people will work hard if everything they don't need to live on is taken away?
And what, in absence of the free market, would a socialist use to determine the value of goods? And what of the other failures of nationalization that I mentioned earlier - that the gov't has no incentive to improve, that there is no accountability?
Whether you like it or not, in capitalism businessmen strive to produce the best product for the best price because if they don't, someone else will, and they will go out of business. Communism entails no such product controls.
Furthermore, how can you call opinions and predictions 'lies'? That's some of the stupidest stuff I've ever read.
Crazed Rabbit
bmolsson
05-10-2005, 05:00
Well you couldnt be more wrong. You could be an illegal alien here and recieve better treatment here than Castro himself probably gets in cuba and not pay a cent for it. The US is better than Cuba whether your rich here or poor. In fact our poor are probably better off as far as things like operations go than most rich people in Cuba if their are any that arent part of the government. You like many are cluless as to how we handle health issues here.
You are probably right... :bow:
You like many are cluless as to how we handle health issues here.
You put the poor and sick in special work camps where "Work makes health" is used as a slogan ?? ~;)
Note: Sarcasm
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 05:02
You put the poor and sick in special work camps where "Work makes health" is used as a slogan ??
No we dont!!!!!!!! We use them for medical research and experiments.
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 05:55
Both communism and capitalism have their shit.
Think about all the corruptability of communism. Sure one could argue that that was the people's prior metality was backward, but how does one brainwash all this off the people's minds? Maybe in the future something could be invented to make this mass brainwashing canpaign possible but for now a good communist state is only as great as it's leaders.
Think about Capitalism. Sure it seems like democracy flourishes and everyone get's out of life as much as he puts in but is that a reality, NO! In fact Democracy is impossible as long and one person can afford more political power then the other. Indiscriminant corruptability would also be rampant. Also do the people that work hard actually have a better living? NO! You could work in a coal mine all your life and be the best worker of the world and still become a bankrupt 60 year old with no money to even buy food. You'll say maybe he should have studied harder at school, welll maybe he couldn't because his parents were already to poor to afford the time of study and school. Also going to college costs a fortune(literally) especially in the US. So in fact Capitalism is completely messed up just as much as the next ideology.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 05:59
You could work in a coal mine all your life and be the best worker of the world and still become a bankrupt 60 year old with no money to even buy food.
You could but its highly unlikely. Chances are in a communist country though is that he will be paid the same as the worst worker.
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 06:08
Well there's problems with communism, I am not pretending that the history of it is perfect. If I was the leader I would definetly make it so people who don't work as hard should be executed. That will motivate people ~;) .
Crazed Rabbit
05-10-2005, 15:13
So you are saying that the only way to make people work in a communist system would not be enticing them with rewards for hard work, but the threat of death hanging over them? Souds like a return to the hunter-gatherer days of human kind.
Socialism and Communism are attempts to rob the mind. Workers who don't have the brains necessary to run a railroad demand the railroad be nationalized, so they can reap the benefits of another person's mind. And when anything that people think up will just be stolen by the state...they won't think anything up.
Crazed Rabbit
Ironside
05-10-2005, 16:43
Two comments on Cuba.
A. Isn't it better to try to compare Castro's Cuba to Batista's Cuba? How many countries have wastly improved thier economy since the late 50-ties? (I'm not saying that Cuba has done it)
B. If I got my history right (not certain in this case), didn't Cuba go close with the Soviets after the harsh response by the US? What would have happened if the US had been nicer to Castro?
Gawain of Orkeny
05-10-2005, 16:53
A. Isn't it better to try to compare Castro's Cuba to Batista's Cuba? How many countries have wastly improved thier economy since the late 50-ties? (I'm not saying that Cuba has done it)
Well people were still driving 1958 chevys under him as they are today but theres not as many of them ~:)
Fidel Batista!
by Lawrence Solomon
National Post
January 25, 2003
Third in a series: Though he was corrupt, Batista made Cuba into an economic powerhouse with a thriving free press. In the hands of Fidel Castro, the island's economy, and the voice of the people, have both been throttled
An illustration of Fidel Castro and Fulgencio Batista holding hands in the air.
Over at the Museo de la Revolucion, Fidel Castro's case against the dictator he overthrew 44 years ago is vividly on display.
Fulgencio Batista was evil incarnate, the museum earnestly instructs visitors in room after room of the once-magnificent building, formerly a presidential palace built in 1920 and decorated by Tiffany's of New York. Under Batista and his predecessors, we learn through photos and text, Cuba became a playground for crass tourists who came for sex, drink and gambling, and who crowded the country's pristine beaches to the detriment of ordinary folk. To drive home the immorality of pre-socialist times, the museum displays an original National Lottery of Cuba ticket from early in the century, a symbol of the country's fall from grace.
We learn that Batista was an illegitimate leader, the election he won stolen by manipulating the press. Worse, Batista intimidated, even jailed or killed, political opponents.
But Batista also failed Cuba by failing to invest government funds wisely. One damning display berates Batista's priorities with a list of budget line items that show government expenditures on frills such as roads, promenades and buildings. Batista's sky-high spending on telecommunications -- which the display dubs as military -- comes in for criticism. Another display lambastes Batista for failing to diversify the economy. Another still, which provides a year-by-year report of sugar output, accuses Batista of ne-glecting this all-important industry. The numbers show a downward trend, interrupted with some up-ticks, in the 1950s, and then a giant leap forward, as Castro mobilized the country to produce more sugar in one of his regime's grand economic plans.
The moral and economic rot under Batista led to humiliation and human tragedy, the museum tells us. "Many women who were denied jobs saw themselves forced to become prostitutes in order to survive," said one display. Said another: "According to a census in 1953, there were 200,000 shacks and misery huts." Said a third, also referring to the 1953 census: "40,939 people died due to lack of medical attendance and unsanitary living conditions."
The history the museum imparts is part truth, part fiction and all hypocrisy. Batista was indeed an unsavory character. He did oversee a corrupt administration in Cuba. He did undermine the halting democracy that the United States helped create after liberating Cuba from oppressive Spanish occupation at the turn of the century.
But Cuba and its U.S.-style constitution was also an economic powerhouse with potent social institutions and impressive accomplishments. A 1958 United Nations report ranked Cuba's vibrant free press eighth in the world, and first in Latin America. Despite its much smaller population, Cuba had 160 radio stations compared to the U.K.'s 62 and France's 50. It had 23 television stations compared to Mexico's 12 and Venezuela's 10. The tiny country supported 58 newspapers, fourth in Latin America behind populous Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.
Cuba once installed telephones at a rapid rate. No more. It once ranked first in Latin America, fifth in the world, in television sets per capita, and also ranked high in radios, automobiles, and many other consumer goods. No more. With the population increased and the housing stock degraded, more people suffer inadequate housing today than ever before, and sanitary conditions have become a scandal through much of the country.
The information-hungry populace in the Batista era was well-educated, as it remains. Student registration at primary schools in 1955 was 1,032 students per 10,000 inhabitants, higher than the figures for 1990 of 842. The registration rate for higher education was an impressive 38 per 10,000, about the same as it was 10 years later (34 per 10,000) and 15 years later (41 per 10,000). The country, in fact, had a long history of high literacy levels: At the turn of the 20th century, only 28% of those 10 and over couldn't read or write, not that different from the cur-rent figure, 100 years later, of 16%.
But unlike today, Cuba's economy under Batista was powerful, both domestically and in exports, and it was becoming increasingly diversified. Under Castro, its economy is in tatters, nowhere more so than in the sugar industry that Castro once promoted so heavily. Last summer, Castro announced a shut down of half of the country's sugar mills. "We had to act or face ruin," he explained. As he told NBC News just this week. "It cost us more to produce sugar than what we could sell it for."
But if Batista bested Castro in virtually every broad socio-economic indicator, he paled in comparison when it came to controlling either the electoral process or the populace. Castro executed thousands of political opponents after he came to power, imprisoned tens of thousands and caused hundreds of thousands to flee to exile. Where Batista won a disputed election, a Castro election leaves no room for dispute: Castro allows no opponents, no opposing viewpoints to appear in the press, and, because that might not be enough, his political machine ensures a good turnout by keeping tabs on who votes and who doesn't: In last Sunday's national election, Castro managed a 90%-plus "yes" vote, not quite as impressive as Saddam Hussein's 100% but, among dic-tators, respectable enough.
Those who revile Batista often point to a decadent economy that relied on mafia-run casinos, prostitution and other demeaning jobs servicing tourists. Tourism was important under Batista -- Havana was an east-coast alternative to Las Vegas, complete with the sex and gaming, and the same mafia owners -- but never as important as tourism has become today. but never as important as tourism has become today.
Cuba's once diversified economy is gone and Castro is now putting all of his hopes in attracting tourists.
To do this, Castro's Cuba now permits prostitution, it winks at sex tourism -- tourist guide books even include sections on the country's once-taboo gay and bisexual scenes -- and, as under Batista, the country unabashedly invests heavily in tourism. Earlier this week, Castro inaugurated a US$100-million resort on the island's northeastern coast, broadcast nation-wide, to underscore the importance the government places on the new five-hotel complex of 944 rooms able to house 1,500 tourists.
Tourism is now Cuba's No. 1 source of foreign income, with 1.6 million visitors generating about US$2-billion last year. More tourists come from Canada than from other important sources of foreign exchange, chiefly Germany, Britain, Italy, France, and Switzerland. Castro, like Batista, is eyeing one other important tourist market.
"Our friends from the north are not in this list," Castro said with a grin, referring to Americans that can't travel to Cuba due to U.S. government regulations.
Some day soon, perhaps, Castro's dream may be realized, and Cuba's economy may once again benefit from U.S. tourism. If it does, Cuba under Castro will have recovered one of the benefits that the country once enjoyed. Forty-four years into the Revolution, Castro will have achieved all the failings, real and perceived, that Cuba had under Batista, and it will have retained few of the virtues.
B. If I got my history right (not certain in this case), didn't Cuba go close with the Soviets after the harsh response by the US? What would have happened if the US had been nicer to Castro?
I dont think Castro ever had any intentions of being friends with the US other than to get Americans to visit there. Im pretty sure he blamed us for his countries problems from day one.
Ironside
05-10-2005, 17:17
I dont think Castro ever had any intentions of being friends with the US other than to get Americans to visit there. Im pretty sure he blamed us for his countries problems from day one.
Well a constant embargo in more than 40 years would annoy some people.
I don't suspect that he would like America, but would he let the Soviets place nukes on Cuba 1962 for example with better relations with the US? Pure speculations though.
And that article smells fishy in some instances:
He did undermine the halting democracy that the United States helped create after liberating Cuba from oppressive Spanish occupation at the turn of the century.
1898-1902 Cuba: US occupation following Spanish-American War
Cuba: US military ran the government from 1906 to 1909; occupied by US troops in 1912, and 1917 to 1922
On a simular note. Is this a sign on what to come in Iraq? ~;) Because according to him it is.
Don Corleone
05-10-2005, 17:29
Well a constant embargo in more than 40 years would annoy some people.
I never realized Castro was such a brilliant prognositcator. He knew in 1959, when he assumed power that the US was going to embargo him for the next 46 years and that's why he siezed American assets? Bloody brilliant! One silly question... if he can see 46 years into the future, why couldn't he have taken the necessary steps to see to it that his people have adequate healthcare, food, jobs and why does he still have to toss dissenters into jail to be tortured? In 46 years, with all the answers, couldn't he come up with something more original? More effective?
Byzantine Prince
05-10-2005, 17:33
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
05-10-2005, 17:39
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
05-10-2005, 17:42
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! ~D
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!! ~D
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
05-10-2005, 17:59
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
05-10-2005, 18:05
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
05-10-2005, 18:16
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
05-10-2005, 20:03
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
05-10-2005, 20:06
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
05-10-2005, 20:27
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.
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.
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
05-11-2005, 14:56
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?
"If rich is bad and poor is good why does almost eveyone want to be rich?"
Couse being poor sucks.
The Wizard
05-11-2005, 15:48
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
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
05-11-2005, 17:24
The great capitalist lie.
Another liar ~:eek:
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
05-11-2005, 17:37
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 (http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/DSS/Sorokin/SOCMOBLT.HTML)
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.
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
05-11-2005, 18:03
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
05-11-2005, 18:19
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
05-11-2005, 18:23
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
05-11-2005, 18:28
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
05-11-2005, 18:30
I create a lot more wealth for my company then he does.
Capitalist pig ~D
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 18:38
Oink, oink baby. :lips: :devil:
Byzantine Prince
05-11-2005, 18:52
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.
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
05-11-2005, 19:01
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. :whip: (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
05-11-2005, 19:07
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.
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.
I would provide you the income figures and information that shows you how wrong you truely are - but I would not want to break you of your illusion that the Party leaders were paid the same as the over workers.
But what the hell - since I am in a vindictive mood right now. I just might dig up the necessary facts to show you how the average worker in the average communist country - lives in abject proverty - while the party leaders live off the sweat of the workers in nice houses and ride in cars that are driven by the others.
However it seems you might of done it yourself - but in your delusion about the benefits of socialism and communism you have failed to see the priveledge few still live off the rest of the citizens.
The difference between a socialist society and a capitialist society is that at least in the capitialist society you get the illusion that you can get ahead in life. In the communist and socialist utopia - well you can get ahead also if you become a party member and take a leadership role - but your dependent upon others to notice you and advance your status - unless of course you show them up and then the corrupt senior leader - who likes his benefits and priviledges that comes with rank - decides to have you shot - just like you advocated in another thread.
Yep a true marxist tactic.
Ser Clegane
05-11-2005, 19:46
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.
Awww ... that's not from their "regular salary". That's from the "gifts" they receive from "grateful" citizens for their good work ~D
Byzantine Prince
05-11-2005, 20:05
Awww ... that's not from their "regular salary". That's from the "gifts" they receive from "grateful" citizens for their good work ~D
Precisely. It's the fact that they are corrupt that disrupts things not the fact they lived in an equal society that acknowledges everyone's contributions equally.
Plus I don't see how them having nice looking suits really means anything. Even though they usually don't. Look at Kim Jong Il, that guy is so corrupt, he's a billionaire from robing the state and he still dresses worse then the garbage man who comes by my house every morning.
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 20:15
BP, you really, really need to read Animal Farm. Orwell was to the Left of you at one point and then he had his eyes opened. I think if you read it and digested it, I strongly suspect you would too. A LOT in there would look very familiar.
Byzantine Prince
05-11-2005, 20:16
I read it in 9th grade. Good little story that.
You can't say anything to me that I don't already know though, I never lived in the Soviet Union but I have lived in a hardline communist country.
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 20:17
By the way BP, how are you going to have enough hours in the day to follow everyone around and make sure they're working hard enough? Any chance you're going to create a special 'supervisory class' to help you? So let me get this worked out here....
You've a majority of the people working in jobs they didnt' want, but you and your cohorts put them into.
If they don't work hard enough, you and your cohorts 'let them have it', whatever 'it' is.
You and your cohorts control all access to wealth, but technically, you don't own any of it....you're just 'holding on to it'.
And somehow, this is more fair than being allowed to provide for yourself?
Byzantine Prince
05-11-2005, 20:20
Yes there are people who finish university that are responsible for those workers working the best they can. There's always supervisors just like any other corporation in America. The difference is that they get paid the same as everyone else even though their job is far easier. So the motivation is there, if you want to have an easy job work hard in school.
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 20:21
I read it in 9th grade. Good little story that.
You can't say anything to me that I don't already know though, I never lived in the Soviet Union but I have lived in a hardline communist country.
It wasn't a story. It was Orwell's take on the Soviet leadership. He used animals because he was in fear for his life.
And what communist country did you live in, Bulgaria? You lived in Bulgaria and you think that system was more fair then free market economies? Okay folks, we have the son of a party official here.... No wonder he wants to 'bring back the good ole' days'.
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 20:25
Yes there are people who finish university that are responsible for those workers working the best they can. There's always supervisors just like any other corporation in America. The difference is that they get paid the same as everyone else even though their job is far easier. So the motivation is there, if you want to have an easy job work hard in school.
You've gotta be kidding me. The head of the KGB did not make the same salary as a coal miner in the Ural mountains, and you're losing all credibility by claiming so. What's more, at the end of the day, this is where Socialism always leads: the government controlling all aspects of your life, and you living in fear 24-7. Go ahead and live it if you want chief, there's still North Korea or Cuba. But for some reason, you're being a hypocrite, hanging out in the decadent West.
Byzantine Prince
05-11-2005, 20:27
And what communist country did you live in, Bulgaria?
Lol, no, more hardline and more isolationist.
It wasn't a story.
Brilliant! ~D
Okay folks, we have the son of a party official here....
My parents were Engineers.
No wonder he wants to 'bring back the good ole' days'.
Look at my sig and think about that.
Don Corleone
05-11-2005, 20:33
Well, I'm not going to play "Guess what country I'm from", sorry.
Your sig... yes I know. You've read a couple books by Neitzche and you think it makes you a genius. Now that you've decied to assume the role of one of is 'Supermen', you're ready to dictate right and wrong to the rest of us. It will be interesting to watch you as you continue to develop, read some more creative people, and actually develop some ideas of your own.
Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed that a high school student is reading Neitzche on his own. But I am surprised that you've never recognized that he hijacked the existential school of thought to come up with a 'universal justification' clause. There is no morality sounds like the ravings of a sociopath, which, he and his number #1 proponent, Adolf Hitler, were. I almost shudder to say this, but Jag is right.... time to move on to Sarte (but don't stop there!)
Byzantine Prince
05-11-2005, 20:39
I'm not a communist politcally but I think it's a great system if it is applied after the country is developed.
Don't get me wrong, I'm impressed that a high school student is reading Neitzche on his own.
Actually I read Nietzsche on my own in late Junior High. I read Homer in grade 7 in greek. I could go on.
There is no morality sounds like the ravings of a sociopath, which, he and his number #1 proponent
Morality is all subjective therefore non-existent.
I almost shudder to say this, but Jag is right.... time to move on to Sarte (but don't stop there!)
I'm skipping Sartre for now. Foucault sounds even better. Maybe I'll try reading Sartre really fast first but i have to find his book in my book store first.
Morality is all subjective therefore non-existent.
Which is way you stated that you had no problem killing workers who can not meet your standards of work under a communist system.
Yep read more Karl Marx - your already going down that path.
The Wizard
05-11-2005, 21:01
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.
You say the 'capitalists' here paint a rosy picture, but you haven't heard yourself then, apparently.
Communism was a dream, but when woken up into it was a living nightmare. Sure, the state can keep up great economical growth for a while, at great social, economical and personal cost, but after a while it all gets too complex for a single organ to control it all. Beautiful example: USSR.
Why are Cuba, Vietnam, China and all those other oppressed, backward communist nations switching to an open market economy via market socialism? That's right, because it works. Now compare those developing economical tigers to a nation such as Korea. Wow, communism really works, doesn't it?
And, by the way, all you commies should try to make a difference between the political system backing the economical one. When you're talking about 'capitalism', 'socialism' etc. you're talking about a political movement. Please talk about 'open market economy' or 'plan economy' when you're trying to discuss economical benefits etc. It really helps your point -- trust me. The same goes for economical ladders and social ones -- there's a set of important differences there, although the two have their connections. But they are not interchangeable.
~Wiz
Ser Clegane
05-11-2005, 21:22
Lol, no, more hardline and more isolationist.
Albania? ~;)
The Wizard
05-11-2005, 21:23
Albania... wasn't that the main exporter of (crappy) AK47's and (apparently crappy; don't smoke the stuff myself) weed in Europe?
~Wiz
Crazed Rabbit
05-11-2005, 22:53
In economics you don't create anything. Money is not made, it is simply transfered.
That is completely and utterly wrong. Ever heard of the 'fractional banking system'.
The capitalist economy IS NOT a zero sum game. You don't have to take from others to gain for yourself.
I find it odd seemingly smart (at least, IQ above 85) people can't see that socialism is slavery and stick to some romantic, made up fantasy of a 'workers paradise'.
You've got to really delude yourself if you think the Sec. General of the USSR got the same wage as a lowly factory worker.
Crazed Rabbit
Crazed Rabbit
BP, you really, really need to read Animal Farm. Orwell was to the Left of you at one point and then he had his eyes opened. I think if you read it and digested it, I strongly suspect you would too. A LOT in there would look very familiar.
Quite wrong. Orwell was a democratic socialist to the day he died, however he was very much against totalitarianism which he saw in Russia communism, and animal farm explains his views on this and the mistakes made by Russia. If you think he suddenly ditched his socialist thoughts and ways, you really don't understand Orwell.
Byzantine Prince
05-12-2005, 01:08
I almost shudder to say this, but Jag is right.... time to move on to Sarte (but don't stop there!)
So, time to move on to someone more Marxist? ~D
Sartre nevertheless insisted that his existentialism is a form of humanism, and he strongly emphasized human freedom, choice, and responsibility. He eventually tried to reconcile these existentialist concepts with a Marxist analysis of society and history.
Also i'm still to be shown a picture of a Communist leader with a good suit. Seriously people(Redleg, Corleone) make comments and they don't back shit up.
Don Corleone
05-12-2005, 01:28
Quite wrong. Orwell was a democratic socialist to the day he died, however he was very much against totalitarianism which he saw in Russia communism, and animal farm explains his views on this and the mistakes made by Russia. If you think he suddenly ditched his socialist thoughts and ways, you really don't understand Orwell.
When did I say he stopped being a socialist? Note to Jag... quit taking drugs before you read my posts... you're seeing things that ain't there, amigo. ~:) I said he had his eyes opened and I meant towards an autoractic socialist system like the one BP is describing. I don't ever remember claiming George Orwell became an ardent capitalist. But then, maybe I'm the one on drugs and I did. ~:cool:
So, time to move on to someone more Marxist? ~D
Also i'm still to be shown a picture of a Communist leader with a good suit. Seriously people(Redleg, Corleone) make comments and they don't back shit up.
LOL - you might want to check out the Chinese communist leadership - they have really good suits.
http://english.people.com.cn/data/organs/newleader.shtml
Don Corleone
05-12-2005, 01:38
So, time to move on to someone more Marxist? ~D
Also i'm still to be shown a picture of a Communist leader with a good suit. Seriously people(Redleg, Corleone) make comments and they don't back shit up.
That's right BP, jump on the bandwagon. I'm a liar. Nikita Krushcev and Joseph Stalin ate turnips for dinner every night. You got me dude!!!
Seriously though, before you start with all this calling me a liar business too, ask yourself, "Gee, maybe I should try having an original thought in my lifetime, rather than ripping off books I've read or other posters". In the meantime, I'll go see what I can't dig about about Uncle Joe and his life on the dachas.
Just for the record - I don't take drugs. I am not that lucky ~;)
Oh and I am very tempted to take this -
I almost shudder to say this, but Jag is right
Horribly out of context and quote it in my sig. ~;)
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 03:08
Just for the record - I don't take drugs. I am not that lucky
Now whos a LIAR or you dont smoke pot anymore?
I have never stated I have smoked pot before, for the simple reason I never have.
You clearly have me mixed up with someone else. I think pot should be completely legal, I have no problems with people who do smoke pot - my friends smoke it, well most of them - but when offered to me I always decline, just as I do with cigarettes.
And why would I lie about it anyway.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 04:51
I have never stated I have smoked pot before, for the simple reason I never have.
I must have you mixed you up with your alter ego Grizz ~D I thought that might be the case. By the way im glad to hear you dont smoke anything and sorry.
Adrian II
05-12-2005, 16:46
Hugo Chavez, great guy! Won nine elections in a row, including a referendum on the president's functioning, the statute for which he himself inserted into the 2002 constitution. Oh, and he survived two coup attempts, the last one of which was stupidly supported by Washington, the U.S. being the only nation in the world to officially recognise the coup leaders. They army, the population and the surrounding nations all chose the side of democracy and the coup failed. Chavez has reformed the state oil company and made it profitable again. His economic policy works: Venezuela has humongous economic growth, the projection for this year being 13% or more. His idea to barter Venezuelan oil for Cuban doctors has paid off huge as well: even 1000 Venezuelan doctors have signed up for this barrio health mission. In another of his misiones over a million Venezuelans have learned to read and write.
Washington can whine all it wants and try to play the old Cold War game, but it needs Venezuelan oil. Hey hey, nine out of twelve countries on the continent are now run by leftist governments. Yes Don, there is socialism in the air in all of Latin American and it smells good.
Uh! Ah! Chavez no se va! :bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 16:49
Yes Don, there is socialism in the air in all of Latin American and it smells good.
This is the point. It always smells good in the beggining but starts to stink with age.
Adrian II
05-12-2005, 17:08
This is the point. It always smells good in the beggining but starts to stink with age.Socialists age beautifully, and they grow much older than capitalists and in healthier ways as well, didn't you know that? Only Mormons can hold a candle to them, and that's only because their ideal society is based on collective land ownership.
~D
The Wizard
05-12-2005, 17:12
Exactly. And then it comes down to the capitalists and open market economists to clean up the ravage socialism left behind when it ran like hell from facing the problems.
And come now, don't go around ignoring the big problems in Venezuela by covering it up with small victories. That's like saying all was well in Stalin's 1930s USSR, because everybody could read and write, and there was good public transportation, and women and men were equal; all the while ignoring the massive social and personal cost that Stalin's industrialization of Russia cost.
As I said; socialism can create big economical growth for a while, but then it just caves in and the entire conjunctural situation gets too complex for the central organ to understand and control it all. That's when the mess comes. And that's when socialism runs. And that's when others have to clean it up.
~Wiz
Adrian II
05-12-2005, 17:21
Exactly. And then it comes down to the capitalists and open market economists to clean up the ravage socialism left behind when it ran like hell from facing the problems.A sustained ten percent growth in a Third World Country looks good to me, Wizard. And the Chicago School of capitalism favoured by seven U.S. presidents in a row and many of their Latin American cronies have never managed to clean up barrios, so let's give Chavez, Lula and the others a chance shall we? Why do you think that nine out of twelve Latin American countries have elected lefties to govern them now that the accursed Soviet Union is gone? For heaven's sake man, half of them are working wholeheartedly with the IMF..
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 17:50
A sustained ten percent growth in a Third World Country looks good to me, Wizard.
The Germans thought Hitler looked good too and he sure gave them real sustained growth much higher than that. Of course when you rob the rich and hand it out to the poor you will get an intial surge of growth. But when youve taxed the rich out of existance where to you turn for your free ride? History supports my position.
Byzantine Prince
05-12-2005, 18:55
Yes Chavez=Hitler. Great job Gawain. ~D
Adrian II
05-12-2005, 18:58
History supports my position.You sound like Castro.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 18:59
Yes Chavez=Hitler. Great job Gawain.
I didnt directly compare him to Hitler I only said that they were or are both seen as heroes by their gemeral public at least at the start. We will have to wait to make the final judgement on Chavez.
Maybe you like the Stalin comparison better as he was a communist. But then he was such a nice guy.
The Wizard
05-12-2005, 19:01
Yep, and the Cultural Revolution brought great gains as well... far greater than Deng Xiao Ping's idea...
~Wiz
Byzantine Prince
05-12-2005, 19:02
He was a very convivial fellow that Stalin. ~;)
Chavez is not a communis though, and neither is he a racist fascist that wants to invade South America and therefore do what you call 'something similar to Hitler'.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-12-2005, 19:05
and therefore do what you call 'something similar to Hitler'.
I made no such remark. All I said is that they both are or were looked at as saviors when they first took control . Spin that anyway you like.
Adrian II
05-12-2005, 20:06
I made no such remark. All I said is that they both are or were looked at as saviors when they first took control . Spin that anyway you like.The comparison with Hitler is wrong for all sorts of reasons. A main difference being that Hitler installed a military regime, Chavez a democracy, including the people's right to subject the president to a referendum between elections. He defended his people against coup plotters supported by the U.S. government, something that has apparently gone completely unnoticed in the United States. I haven't registered any protest from you about it.
Yet this is what it's all about, Gawain. This isn't 1973. Democratic socialism is alive in your 'backyard' and attempts to 'lose' elected leaders aren't as easy as they used to be.
I'd say the mere fact that Washington supported those Venezuelan gorillas in 2003 proves that George W. Bush' words about spreading democracy in the world are propaganda and we shouldn't take them at face value. Killing or deposing elected leaders is criminal. Maybe you don't care. The rest of the world does. If you ever want to understand why so many people in the world hate the U.S., look no further than this example.
All I can do is say very well said Adrian, so true.
The Wizard
05-12-2005, 22:56
As if Bush's policy is any news. Monroe doctrine, my friends, early 19th century. Then good ol' Teddy in the early 20th.
I still don't see any reaction of you socialists at Chavez's repression of those who oppose him (oh, about half the country).
~Wiz
Crazed Rabbit
05-13-2005, 00:42
I suppose they think some people just have to suffer, for that etheral goal, that haunting, phantom of a goal that is 'the public good'.
What's funny is that they always say capitalism is slavery, then start going on about how they have to rob you, force you to work, etc., for the public good. Socialism really is slavery, because they want you to work without reward for your work, in service of other people.
Naturally, people don't work at all, but do become extremely needy.
And why have these socialists been completely unwilling to answer any hard questions about the nature of socialism? Instead we here how, since Chavez allowed a rigged referendum, he is 'democratic', even while he changes the constitution and throws dissenters in jail.
Crazed Rabbit
Byzantine Prince
05-13-2005, 00:44
I suppose they think some people just have to suffer, for that etheral goal, that haunting, phantom of a goal that is 'the public good'.
What's funny is that they always say capitalism is slavery, then start going on about how they have to rob you, force you to work, etc., for the public good. Socialism really is slavery, because they want you to work without reward for your work, in service of other people.
Naturally, people don't work at all, but do become extremely needy.
And why have these socialists been completely unwilling to answer any hard questions about the nature of socialism? Instead we here how, since Chavez allowed a rigged referendum, he is 'democratic', even while he changes the constitution and throws dissenters in jail.
Crazed Rabbit
I beleave the line I'm looking for is: "Man is doomed to be free." - Sartre
Crazed Rabbit
05-13-2005, 00:50
And what does that mean? That you think man should not be free, but live on your whims and what you decide to be good for him? I don't quite understand what your getting at.
And do you concede, by your silence, that socialism is terrible, doomed to fail, and goes against man's nature?
Crazed Rabbit
Byzantine Prince
05-13-2005, 00:53
Au Contraire. Socialism is great. Man is doomed to be free so slavery and work are all subjective. If you think you are free and don't wanna work you won't be trully free.
Gawain of Orkeny
05-13-2005, 01:25
The comparison with Hitler is wrong for all sorts of reasons. A main difference being that Hitler installed a military regime, Chavez a democracy, including the people's right to subject the president to a referendum between elections
First off once again I didnt compare him to Hitler but I did compare their influence of their countries economies and the reaction of their people to them. I in no way said he was an evil psyhcopath like Hitler. Again you spin it anyway you like. Also democracy is no better than socialism in its pure form if not worse.
Yet this is what it's all about, Gawain. This isn't 1973. Democratic socialism is alive in your 'backyard' and attempts to 'lose' elected leaders aren't as easy as they used to be.
I never said it was or did I say we should remove him. If his people want him so bad its their choice and in the future mark my words it is they who will have to pay the price of what hes doing now. It looks to me like a sure recipe for disaster.
I beleave the line I'm looking for is: "Man is doomed to be free." - Sartre
Condemned to be free actually, but the point remains the same.
Au Contraire. Socialism is great. Man is doomed to be free so slavery and work are all subjective. If you think you are free and don't wanna work you won't be trully free.
Is of course completely true. Slaves were still totally free, it was simply the options of their choices they had which were abhorrent.
Byzantine Prince
05-13-2005, 02:14
Thanks for that correction JAG.
Oh I got my first Sartre book! :balloon2:
I got Being and Nothingness because I couldn't find the other one you mentioned anywhere. :sad:
I still have to finish up my reading of Nietzsche though. Soon I'll start reading that too.
Well good luck reading it without an expert Sartre philosopher on hand, that is one hell of a hard book to read and grasp. Mainly because of the terrible grammar.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.