That Hugo, Tisk Tisk

I say we make this as popular as any other thread.
We here at the Org. enjoy Hugo Chavez.
His interesting word choice and socialistic policies have us laughing and cringing at what may be the new Fidel Castro.
So, in homage to our glorious leader (if any Venezuelans are reading this)...
So why shouldn't he be able to
Rule by Decree passed for Hugo Chavez
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm
or
Nationalize key Venezuelan Companies
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6243299.stm


We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no-one can prevent it
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez


Then again his Country is Fully Democratic
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6281417.stm


I'm smelling brimstone!

Firstly there is nothing wrong with nationalizing energy companies. It's not like the energy market worldwide is a free competitive one. If energy companies fall in private hands the "democratic energy market" becomes a monopoly and those energy dudes get to increase the price whenever they want to. It's not like the Venezuelans have any option.

Quote:

---

"All of that which was privatised, let it be nationalised," he said during the speech.

"The nation should recover its ownership of strategic sectors."

---

That is exactly my opinion. Strategic resources must be kept under gouverment control. If key areas of the economy (particulary those where there is hardly any competition at all such as energy) are privatized than prices start surging and THAT is worse than gouverment control in those areas. As long as Chavez doesn't overdue himself and nationalises all Venezuelan companies where there is a competitive market than I have a thumb up for his initiave :thumbsup:

Any friend of Carlos the Jackal is a friend of mine.

I, for one, welcome Venezuelas socialist overlord. :whip:

Another perfect example of why term limits are probably the most important tool in any democracy.

His first two terms had many good things being done - some poorly judged, but mainly good. Come a third term, he is seeing himself as indispensible and the only man to know how to "save" the country - and this, rather unimaginatively, includes measures to reduce democracy and rights.

Sad.

In related news, Chavez has told the United States to "Go to hell, gringos! Go home!"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Hey, atleast hes professional and classy.

He spices up politics that keeps us from falling into the doublespeak of politicians.

If he and Iran's prime minister weren't in control of oil deposits, I would find the situation comedic.

Can we have this stickied for all the crazy things Chavez does?
Don't try to tell me he doesn't do crazy stuff.

If the world were a total war game he is playing it like I would, consolidate all the rebels at home (nationalize all those rogue companies) then start building up my military (all the militia training and aircraft purchases) then the next move would be expansion! The only thing I would do differently is not pissing on the one country that could completely destroy me. :freak:

While Hugo is possibly the most entertaining world leader going, I think I have to agree with Banquo here.

I'd be a bit more critical of his track record than BG, but I heartily agree with BG that this signals pretty clearly that Hugo's greatest contributions are already in the past.

Ah, the lovable Chavez up to his nutty escapades again... :laugh4:

I just wish we Americans could get away with telling various world leaders to go to h*ll. :whip:

[CYNICISM]

Actually, I'm encouraged by these new developments. If Venezuela is going to insist on being America's enemy for the next 50 years, well... nothing will weaken the country more effectively than a totalitarian socialist regime.

[/CYNICISM]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

Firstly there is nothing wrong with nationalizing energy companies. It's not like the energy market worldwide is a free competitive one. If energy companies fall in private hands the "democratic energy market" becomes a monopoly and those energy dudes get to increase the price whenever they want to. It's not like the Venezuelans have any option.
resources must be kept under gouverment control. If key areas of the economy (particulary those where there is hardly any competition at all such as energy) are privatized than prices start surging and THAT is worse than gouverment control in those areas. As long as Chavez doesn't overdue himself and nationalises all Venezuelan companies where there is a competitive market than I have a thumb up for his initiave :thumbsup:

---

exactly, although i agree he's losing it a bit, theres nothing wrong with this... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

exactly, although i agree he's losing it a bit, theres nothing wrong with this... :2thumbsup:

---

A bit? He's attempting, and will probably suceed, in getting the the national assembly to grant him powers to decree laws on his own. That is a very scary for the future of democracy in Venezuela, but if the Venezuelan people want that, who am I to judge. After all, he was elected democratically. :gah2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

A bit? He's attempting, and will probably suceed, in getting the the national assembly to grant him powers to decree laws on his own. That is a very scary for the future of democracy in Venezuela, but if the Venezuelan people want that, who am I to judge. After all, he was elected democratically. :gah2:

---

You're talking about something completely different to what Scurvy was commenting on. Scurvy was saying there's nothing wrong in nationalising energy industries. Most of the British population would probably prefer our national infrastructure to be nationalised, as it would run (and has run) more efficiently than the privatised mish-mash we have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You're talking about something completely different to what Scurvy was commenting on. Scurvy was saying there's nothing wrong in nationalising energy industries. Most of the British population would probably prefer our national infrastructure to be nationalised, as it would run (and has run) more efficiently than the privatised mish-mash we have now.

---

I must have misunderstood him then. I took when he said "he's losing it a bit" to mean hes becoming a bit overauthorative.

Well, he called Bush the devil so he cant be that bad

Quote:

---

Firstly there is nothing wrong with nationalizing energy companies.

---

1 It's theft
2 It will decrease efficiency
3 It will drive out all foreign investment
4 It will hurt the economy
5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise
6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator

Etc.

Oh, and yes, we conservatives have basically been calling this for years (I wonder what JAG has to say). I can't wait till the price of oil drops.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

1 It's theft
2 It will decrease efficiency
3 It will drive out all foreign investment
4 It will hurt the economy
5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise
6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator

Etc.

Oh, and yes, we conservatives have basically been calling this for years (I wonder what JAG has to say). I can't wait till the price of oil drops.

Crazed Rabbit

---

Our experience of privatising national infrastructure is that we have to pay more for a worse service. Where there can be several competitors in a single area, the market will drive prices down and efficiency up. Where companies bid for what are effectively temporary monopolies, there is little incentive to raise efficiency and lower prices. Instead, they try to extract as much money from the customers as they can until their contract runs out. And if the government breaks up the system in order to limit the size of the monopoly, the companies can't raise efficiency even if they wanted to, as they'll have to negotiate with other companies dealing with a different part of the chain who have different requirements from them, in a system that was designed to work as a single entity.

The result? We pay almost as much in subsidies as we used to do in taxes, and the companies impose an extra surcharge on top to ensure profits. The overall tax burden is not noticeably reduced, and the customers have to pay a lot more than they used to. And because the system has been broken up, it doesn't run as efficiently as it used to either, meaning much higher prices for a worse service. Some industries are naturally monopolies, and as such nationalisation is less bad than privatisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

I must have misunderstood him then. I took when he said "he's losing it a bit" to mean hes becoming a bit overauthorative.

---

Then I've misunderstood you even more than you've misunderstood him.

"A bit" is British understatement, emphasising the magnitude of the deed by de-emphasising it. Other useful terms: "A touch", "A tad", "A smidgin".

Quote:

---

1 It's theft

---

What is ?
It could be said that the privatisation of the nationalised industries for a pittance leaving the tax payers(owners) with all the debts and the new investors with all the assets (with the help of a few nice bribes) was the theft Rabbit .

Quote:

---

2 It will decrease efficiency

---

Not neccesarily

Quote:

---

3 It will drive out all foreign investment

---

Wasn't his recent world tour done with the purpose of securing investment from other countries to push through the programs .

Quote:

---

4 It will hurt the economy

---

Not neccesarily , keeping a larger share of the revenue in the country can aid the economy.

Quote:

---

5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise

---

Possibly

Quote:

---

6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator

---

Luckily they have a constitution (you know the one the failed coup abolished as its first move) which prevents that .
To amend the constitution first he has to get the 2/3 votes in parliament (unfortunately no problem since the opposition boycotted the election ) but then it has to go to a nationwide vote by the citizens for approval .
So yes , he could become a dictator , if the citizens democratically vote for a dictatorship .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What is ?
It could be said that the privatisation of the nationalised industries for a pittance leaving the tax payers(owners) with all the debts and the new investors with all the assets (with the help of a few nice bribes) was the theft Rabbit .

---

Were Venezuela's soon-to-be-nationalized companies privatised recently? Seeing as some of them are owned by foreign companies, I think not.

Quote:

---

Not neccesarily

---

But very, very likely. He wants socialism, which is not renowned for efficiency.

Quote:

---

Wasn't his recent world tour done with the purpose of securing investment from other countries to push through the programs .

---

Companies don't get large and able to invest in foreign countries by being stupid, and they know actions speak louder than words.

Quote:

---

Not neccesarily , keeping a larger share of the revenue in the country can aid the economy.

---

Foreign investment will fall, revenue from nationalized companies will fall, and Chavez is going to be the one getting the money.

Quote:

---

Possibly

---

Rather likely, I'd say.

Quote:

---

Luckily they have a constitution (you know the one the failed coup abolished as its first move) which prevents that .
To amend the constitution first he has to get the 2/3 votes in parliament (unfortunately no problem since the opposition boycotted the election ) but then it has to go to a nationwide vote by the citizens for approval .
So yes , he could become a dictator , if the citizens democratically vote for a dictatorship .

---

Really? Chavez doesn't seem to put a lot of weight into that document, and stuff like term limits, which used to be mandated by the consitution.

Crazed Rabbit

For those who had any doubts as to Hugo's democratic credentials, now all of our questions have been answered.

Remember, Hitler was democratically elected, and it was the majority will of the German people that he be sworn in as Fuhrer-for-life.

What really gets me, is how he can get away with calling someone as neutral and well-intentioned as Cesar Gaviria, prez of the OAS, a "verdadero pendejo".

You, Hugo Chavez Frias, are a verdadero pendejo. Go to hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

For those who had any doubts as to Hugo's democratic credentials, now all of our questions have been answered.

Remember, Hitler was democratically elected, and it was the majority will of the German people that he be sworn in as Fuhrer-for-life.

What really gets me, is how he can get away with calling someone as neutral and well-intentioned as Cesar Gaviria, prez of the OAS, a "verdadero pendejo".

You, Hugo Chavez Frias, are a verdadero pendejo. Go to hell.

---

Proof that Godwin applies to all forums.

Quote:

---

Were Venezuela's soon-to-be-nationalized companies privatised recently? Seeing as some of them are owned by foreign companies, I think not.

---

Would you like to reconsider your response there Rabbit ?
Or do I feel a real burst of laughing smilies coming on .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

1 It's theft
2 It will decrease efficiency
3 It will drive out all foreign investment
4 It will hurt the economy
5 It decreases freedom, economic and otherwise
6 It increases the power of a soon to be dictator

Etc.

Oh, and yes, we conservatives have basically been calling this for years (I wonder what JAG has to say). I can't wait till the price of oil drops.

Crazed Rabbit

---

1. It isn't theft. Some areas of the economy just can't be left into the hands of private investors. If someone bought the Golden Gate bridge and decided to impose on you a fee for crossing it every time just because it's "private propriety" would a private transport network have anything to do with freedom?
2. Not exactly. Remember, it's the time of market we're talking about. If you privatize a company that has monopoly you create a trust and that is as anti-efficient as state control in that particular sector.
3. Foreign investment sometimes needs to be channeled. You don't want to become dependant on foreign enterprises. A national economy controlled by off-shore companies is politically vulnerable.
4. Re-nationalizing some key areas of the economy where there wasn't any competition isn't bad at all. At least prices now can be influienced in a way by the avarage consumer.
5. It doesn't decrease economic freedom. If you don't have to pay as much for energy you have more money to spend and thus you can become an investor yourself. If there's anything that can limit your freedom, that would be the price you have to pay for your bills.
6. Not exactly, if those companies are given to the local councils to manage.

Quote:

---

1. It isn't theft. Some areas of the economy just can't be left into the hands of private investors. If someone bought the Golden Gate bridge and decided to impose on you a fee for crossing it every time just because it's "private propriety" would a private transport network have anything to do with freedom?

---

Taking things from people against their will is theft.

Quote:

---

2. Not exactly. Remember, it's the time of market we're talking about. If you privatize a company that has monopoly you create a trust and that is as anti-efficient as state control in that particular sector.

---

The nationalized companies weren't monopolies, remember, we're talking about Venezuela, not the UK.

Quote:

---

3. Foreign investment sometimes needs to be channeled. You don't want to become dependant on foreign enterprises. A national economy controlled by off-shore companies is politically vulnerable.

---

Channeled? Says who? Not good economics, that's for sure.

Quote:

---

4. Re-nationalizing some key areas of the economy where there wasn't any competition isn't bad at all. At least prices now can be influienced in a way by the avarage consumer.

---

Yes, it is - government is almost always less efficient than private companies, and the prices certainly aren't going to be influenced by consumers - they are going to be controlled by Chavez.

Quote:

---

5. It doesn't decrease economic freedom. If you don't have to pay as much for energy you have more money to spend and thus you can become an investor yourself. If there's anything that can limit your freedom, that would be the price you have to pay for your bills.

---

Yes, it does - the property of people is taken from them for supposedly economical reasons, and people have less overall freedom to run a business as they see fit.

Quote:

---

6. Not exactly, if those companies are given to the local councils to manage.

---

Haha! You think they will be? Either way, who do you think controls the local councils?

Crazed Rabbit

Oh well I gave a fair chance to reconsider.
time to say Rabbit is talking some rubbish .

Quote:

---

Were Venezuela's soon-to-be-nationalized companies privatised recently? Seeing as some of them are owned by foreign companies, I think not.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You think wrong .
Take the first from the article , state owned until privatisation 15 years ago , shortly after privatisation (for a knock down price) it became the target for a take over by a foriegn company .

Quote:

---

Companies don't get large and able to invest in foreign countries by being stupid, and they know actions speak louder than words.

---

Ah yes , that was a response to the statement about the recent push for foriegn investment , could tie it in with this one as well .....

Quote:

---

Foreign investment will fall, revenue from nationalized companies will fall, and Chavez is going to be the one getting the money.

---

....
So then Rabbit how much investment did he attract ? how much is for short term and how much for long term ? Do you know how large a range of projects the new investment covers ?
Oh and if you thought that big multi nationals wouldn't be stupid enough to invest in nationalised industries can you explain the $17 bn put in by a very big American company to a State run energy provider in Venezuela .:inquisitive:
Hmmmm...revenue will fall , well that depends do you mean export revenue , like the new deals for exports that tie in with the new foreign investments or do you mean revenue from the domestic market?
Interesting one about domestic revenue , reducing the existing government subsidies for petroleum :yes: thats a bit of a swings and rounabouts one isn't it . No longer shall the ordinary citizen be able to get tax subsidised petrol for 14c . State owned public transport will still get the old price though .
Looky there .....state owned public transport ...how revolutionary ..... how radical .....how errrrrrr....normal .
Now I wonder which manufaturer of buses signed a deal with Venezuela to supply lots of buses ? It wouldn't be an American company by any chance would it ?
No never and especially since this crazy Latino is going to be bad for business they wouldn't possibly be setting up their own workshops and licensing arrangement down there would they :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Damn that foriegn investment , its a bugger when it keeps on cropping up when you least expect it . well .....when you least expect it because you didn't bother to look beyond the "Its Chavez:wall: "

You see Rabbit , on this particular issue Hugo (no matter what other sort of idiot he is) has learnt from the past , he saw what happened to Guatamala and Cuba with their nationalisation programs and has taken measures to avoid it .

Now would you like to address a proper problem about his program instead ?
Price fixing of agricultural produce . The method of determining effective use for the land seizures . Allocation of the siezed land before the educational programs and support infrastructure are up and running ...
Oh but I would appreciate it if you actually knew something about it before you just go off on a usual ...."but its Chavez:wall: " ~;)

Quote:

---

4. Re-nationalizing some key areas of the economy where there wasn't any competition isn't bad at all. At least prices now can be influienced in a way by the avarage consumer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Yes, it is - government is almost always less efficient than private companies, and the prices certainly aren't going to be influenced by consumers - they are going to be controlled by Chavez.

---

And Chavez is appointed by who...?

Ownership of certain branches of infrastructure, like railroads and phone lines, should be state property. Exploitation should be left to private companies, IMHO.

Hugo has to nationalize as much of the economy as he can. If it were to prosper then he couldn't scapegoat the US any more. If you want to compare nationalized vs. private sector economies compare Canada and Mexico. As in the example of oil: Both say that whatever lies under ground is property of the government but Canada lets private firms extract it while Mexico doesn't. That's why Canada is doing so well and Mexico is falling behind. Government already controls the private sector thru regulations, there is no reason why they should take it over completly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

For those who had any doubts as to Hugo's democratic credentials, now all of our questions have been answered.

Remember, Hitler was democratically elected, and it was the majority will of the German people that he be sworn in as Fuhrer-for-life.

What really gets me, is how he can get away with calling someone as neutral and well-intentioned as Cesar Gaviria, prez of the OAS, a "verdadero pendejo".

You, Hugo Chavez Frias, are a verdadero pendejo. Go to hell.

---

Where did you learn Mexican?

As for the topic: who didnt see this coming?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Where did you learn Mexican?

As for the topic: who didnt see this coming?

---

Me :sweatdrop:

Why are you all attacking the great man that is Hugo Chavez?:no:
















































































































:laugh4: