Hey, the rest of the world says that too. Minus the gringos and the socialism of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Printable View
Hey, the rest of the world says that too. Minus the gringos and the socialism of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
I don't consider 15 years ago recent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I think correctly.
It doesn't matter if it's Chavez or not - I am arguing from a simple economics viewpoint. Did that 17bn foreign invstment happen after he announced his nationalization plan?Quote:
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 .........
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: " ~;)
Why? In the US, it was private companies that built the rail network that cross this land, not the idiot gov't.Quote:
Ownership of certain branches of infrastructure, like railroads and phone lines, should be state property. Exploitation should be left to private companies, IMHO.
CR
chavez seems to be a one trick pony. He seems to be spending a lot of his time making bombastic statements. bush doesn't gripe about osama or even fidel doesn't gripe about bush as much as chavez does about bush. it's fine to have the Great Enemy but if that's the almost exclusive point of your politics, evnetually you will fail.
i read an interesting article a week ago that said that contrary to what he may believe, chavez' power primarily derives from the price of oil. he may put up statues of himself and declare himself emperor of new turkmenistan for all most venezualans could care as long as money is flowing into the system from the high price of oil. if the price drops like it did during the term of his predecessor, chavez will eventually be evicted either through elections or feet first through a coup, no matter how indispensable he may percieve himself to be.
it nevertheless continues to amaze me though that in this day and age, some politicians still try to build up their little personality cults as if the state won't continue without them long after they're dead.
You are young , but you will learn grassshopper .Quote:
I don't consider 15 years ago recent.
I think correctly.
No you are arguing from a simple viewpoint .Quote:
It doesn't matter if it's Chavez or not - I am arguing from a simple economics viewpoint
One really major flaw in your position is illustrated by this ........you fail to realise that one of the main reasons why he is popular over there is that it was previous polititians who had a long history of corruption lining their own pockets by stealing from the taxpayer and getting bribes for contracts .Quote:
Chavez is going to be the one getting the money.
While that is true, you neglect to acknowledge his contention that Chavez is profiting from his position, or are you contending he isn't or won't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
OK a little more time now instead of the rushed effort this morning .
So now Rabbit .Good question , a very good question , especially since you have a theory about foriegn investment .Quote:
Did that 17bn foreign invstment happen after he announced his nationalization plan?
So you want to know if the $17 billion invested in a State owned company that has always been state owned occured before or after plans for state ownership . hmmmmm ...tricky one there since it is a state owned company whose status will not change with the expansion of state ownership .:yes:
Oooooooops , could you perhaps have come up with a worse example Rabbit ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Why? In the US, it was private companies that built the rail network that cross this land, not the idiot gov't.
But OK we shall fly with that example for a while to see how it crashes down .
Bribery , big bribery of elected officials including a future President of your great nation to secure government funds , government lands and government contracts .
So how much government land (thats tax payers land you know)was it they got given ? How many millions of acres of tax payers land ?
Wasn't it something like 10 square miles each side of every mile of track they laid .
My my isn't that a damn big government handout .
Now it seems Rabbit that it is your idea (part from the "its Chavez") that nationalised industries do not work , they do not attract outside investment , and are not profitable .
Well sorry to burst your bubble , but while there have been many spectacular failures there have also been many roaring sucesses .
Just as with privatisation of nationalised industries there have been many dismal failures as well as great results .
Just as two examples that have been in topics here recently , the British MOD privatising the maintainance of its combat aircraft and property portfolio , your military privatising much of its transport and supply operations (often on a no bid basis :no: ) ........So do you consider those as good or bad examples of free market benefits ?
If you would like some more to consider there are a plethora of Irish ones to consider . The Brits will undoubably manage to tell a good few from both the good and bad side (as each case merits it ) and perhaps the Germans and French can have a giggle about how some of their state owned businesses managed to expand and profit greatly (plus get extra investment ) from other countries de-nationalisation programs .
The scale of it remains to be seen Black Ship .Quote:
While that is true, you neglect to acknowledge his contention that Chavez is profiting from his position, or are you contending he isn't or won't?
I don't doubt that he will , he is after all a politician , politicians are by the very nature of their job lying thieving scum .
What I do acknowledge is that Rabbit previously posted some data from a site that showed how much Castro was profiting from his position , it involved adding up the sum worth of all Cuban government holdings and saying "this is all Castros personal wealth which he stole from the citizens":yes:
To avoid the disadvantages of a technological monopoly, silly :burnout:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Most Venezuelans are just as embarrassed by Chavez's tirades as the rest of us are flabbergasted. He enjoys the fanatical support of a minority, and the tepid acquiescence of a majority. Most simply accept him as inevitable, and many give him points for having good intentions. But the average citizen is not blind to the fact that Chavez makes an idiot of himself.
I think that if you want a laugh, look at all the odd American politicians. You always seem to elect the weirdest people to congress. I frequently go on american news sites for a good laugh. Lemur has posted a lot of stories (Foley, etc.), but I advise just checking news sites every know and then.
Replace Venezuelans with Americans and replace Chavez with Bush and that still makes sense .Quote:
Most Venezuelans are just as embarrassed by Chavez's tirades as the rest of us are flabbergasted. He enjoys the fanatical support of a minority, and the tepid acquiescence of a majority. Most simply accept him as inevitable, and many give him points for having good intentions. But the average citizen is not blind to the fact that Chavez makes an idiot of himself.
Hey Rabbit any more thoughts about your really really bad example you used ?
It is just that I was wondering what you would get if you took the words American and railtrack and put them together ?
Oh and whatever you do don't mention the largest State in the Union and railroads .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Me likey. :yes:
CARACAS, Venezuela - President Hugo Chavez's political mentor — who once persuaded the fiery leader to seek power through elections after he led a failed coup — now says the regime has "all the characteristics of a dictatorial government."
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:Quote:
Me likey:yes:
Oh the irony . :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Someone who told chavez not to steal power through a coup but to do it through elections is speaking at a ceremony by a newspaper whose owners tried to sieze power through a coup and whose party won't stand for election .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Thanks for that vlad , me likey that too :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Well it's not the sole point of "his" politics, it's his trademark only. He's a socialist and socialism implies profound transformation of society through the actions of the State, so as you can imagine "his" politics are much more spread out than those of any other leader of state in a capitalist country. A good politician has to know how to show a public face and a private one, and a lot of the decisions that will have political consequences are taken on a private enviorament. The other great part of "his" politics is the union and congregation of all south american countries, if there's a man that you can say is making an effort to unite the sometimes antagonistic countries, that man is Hugo Chavez. He is also pro UN, and is looking to revive the discussion inside the chambers of the assembly. There's a lot more to Hugo than only his public punch line, wich is a funny addendum nontheless. If it were otherwise, I agree with you, the man wouldn't last any longer on his position.Quote:
Originally Posted by nokhor
I wouldn't understimate the anti-american discourse power on the south american political field. There's a profound and old mistrust against north americans down here, and Venezuela is no exception, sometimes that mistrusts turns into hate. Now I'll like to read that article to see what the author said. Besides Hugo is one of the most charismatics man I've ever seen in politics, you could say that he was born to do that. On the other hand if you want to know about personal cults in south american politics, you could take a look at Peron for example, or even better: Carlos Rovira.This last guy wanted to be the indefinite governor of Misiones in Argentina, now his megalomany doesn's stop there, he wants to build a cross bigger than the Christ Reedeemer and the Statue of Liberty in the same province to his honour (even if the people of the province are almost all against him) [the link is in spanish, but you can translate it]. Now that's megalomany.Quote:
i read an interesting article a week ago that said that contrary to what he may believe, chavez' power primarily derives from the price of oil. he may put up statues of himself and declare himself emperor of new turkmenistan for all most venezualans could care as long as money is flowing into the system from the high price of oil. if the price drops like it did during the term of his predecessor, chavez will eventually be evicted either through elections or feet first through a coup, no matter how indispensable he may percieve himself to be.
And it will continue as long as there's a State and a society. Is just human nature. Now I could argue, however, that I've never seen Hugo making a deal about his person or anyone talking about a cult of Chavez. That will be funny... and terrifying in someway...Quote:
it nevertheless continues to amaze me though that in this day and age, some politicians still try to build up their little personality cults as if the state won't continue without them long after they're dead.
i think that he just wants some attention i dont us imposing sactions angainst him or anything so i dont get why he says all these things when we are giving his country money for there oil and he assumes that we are going to invade him even though there is no reason to except to shut him up
did you read the above post? :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by shizzernockers3
--> btw, you pay him for oil, because hes selling it to you....
And if you buy it from a US based subsidiary that used to be a privately owned US business until it was bought by a Venezuelan state owned company you can get a really really big discount .Quote:
--> btw, you pay him for oil, because hes selling it to you....
Anyhow where dat wabbit go ?:laugh4: :laugh4:
Since the railroads approach became a bit of a trainwreck for ya how about another gem you came up with .......
Good point , very good point , we do be talking about Venezuela so we do ....so now my furry friend, which of those privatised companies from the opening articles are monopolies in Venezuela ?~:doh:Quote:
The nationalized companies weren't monopolies, remember, we're talking about Venezuela, not the UK.
Not only do the articles prove nothing at all of him being a 'dictator' - for instance you forget to mention that the SAME law was passed in his first term and he did not abuse it, quite the opposite he used it to great effect to help the needy of his country - but the whole US obsession with demonising Chavez does actually show what a strong position he is in. US hegemony in Southern American politics and society is being broken and about time.
And I love the nationalising of industry being stated as stealing. HA! What a laugh!! No if you want to see daylight robbery look in your history books and turn to 1980's Britain and a certain Mrs Thatcher.
JAG! How long have you been back? I have been quiet for a while, so I haven't been reading many threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Jag, Nationalising British industry did have one effect: in the main it now turns a profit and isn't merely a group of failing businesses heavily subsidised to help soak up the jobless. Look at the comedy from the time. Much of it was focuse on the stanglehold unions had on the country and how this was throttling the economy.
But you've still got the NHS a good old fashioned Labour white elephant - sorry, business. Full of middle layer managers, masses of pointless beaurocracy and a slew of new constraints every year. Be grateful that Thatcher didn't privatise that... :dizzy2:
The National Railways are a complete disaster - but IMO that is to do with how it was performed. Before nationalisation the companies held all assets in their area, not this insane system where about 4 companies are required to get anything done. But as I say - the railways were private before nationalisation.
~:smoking:
Who's trying to demonize him? The article I posted was about his mentor. It seems like he's doing everything he can to demonize the U.S. You must have forgotten his devil came down to the UN speech. He's doing a pretty good job of demonizing himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
That depends on the eyes of the beholder...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
On the industry nationalization issue: I think it's effectivity depends on the status and on the goals of a certain State on a certain point. It's not simply absolutely inneffective or counter productive, it can be, however, given the right conditions. What the people from the first world contruies and the rest of the industrialized world has to understand is that the industry's (heavy industry, of course, and electronics too) on Latin America in general is very poor, most of the surgent industries are precary at best and cannot compite. Many industries wich provided public services in Latin America were bought by multinationals and other companies from Europe or North America. This companies took advantage of this poor situation and bought the previously national companies from begging governants and other subjects in a sad situation. It's more, as this companies held the high ground during this deep transformation of the economic estructure, they could as easily avoid the nuisance of paying taxes and they could also ignore other laws wich made them subject to other burdens. This occured with all companies in fact, and not just with those that started to provide the public services. As the State had no leverage to force this services to behave as they wanted, the companies suffered a fast process of pauperization, and there was no way out of this unless the State bought the companies back, wich in many cases didn't happened.
Now, let's take the example of the US. AFAIK the State of the USA is not exactly poor. If a company grows to much, becomes a monopoly or gets a little "cocky", the State itself creates the competence and forces the monopoly to disapear or to make a deal. This is why in rich States it's easier to make capitalism work as it should, but in my opinion, nationalizing some industries (public industries) and subsidizing others is not only a good movement in developing countries but necessary also.
Not in this case, it's quite literal. When you refer to someone, especially the leader of a country to the devil, or a demon, it's demonizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
It's also reflexive. :yes:
Soulforged,
i don't mind if venezuela nationalises industries that it believes are essential for its security. venezuela is a sovereign country and they will gain the domestic benefits and pay the international repurcussions of such a move. that is fine. but when chavez starts slowly changing the constitution so that he can be president for life. when he starts getting rid of all independent media because they are against 'the People.' if he accumulates more and more power into his hands because only he knows the 'Right True Way' and he begins to consider the state and himself one and the same then what happens after he dies or is removed from power?
it's the same crap that czar vladimir I was pulling when he recently declared that after his presidency is over he's still going to be overseeing the russian state in some kind of capacity. its the idea of ' i am indispensable to the state' mentality that i find offensive; since the state existed way before these guys and will exist long after they're gone. but other people usually have to pick up the pieces after the Great Leader has exited or been forced off the stage.
I thought you meant that Chavez is demonizing himself...forgive me if I was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I'm with you. I'm not necessarily defending Chavez as a person, but I believe some of his moves are necessary and some others beneficial. Everyone carries his virtues and his vices with himself, and Chavez is not different. The discussion that surrounds his person is always biased towards one extreme or the other. One sides ignores the good things he has done (or denies it's goodness) and only see the bad things, and viceversa. It's all pure rethoric, and it becomes stronger because Chavez is a public figure and is always active. My post was more to adress your statement of Chavez's politics points.Quote:
Originally Posted by nokhor
I get you, and I don't like it either, but again is human nature, and again, perhaps Chavez is not doing it for those reasons, perhaps he believes that the democratic process has to be stoped and not necessarily attach the State to his person. It's nontheless, very dangerous, and everyone is doing well in watching him and worrying.Quote:
it's the same crap that czar vladimir I was pulling when he recently declared that after his presidency is over he's still going to be overseeing the russian state in some kind of capacity. its the idea of ' i am indispensable to the state' mentality that i find offensive; since the state existed way before these guys and will exist long after they're gone. but other people usually have to pick up the pieces after the Great Leader has exited or been forced off the stage.
We had a hegemony in SA politics? Why didn't anybody tell me?Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Even in our best "Banana Republic" days, JAG, we didn't have anything resembling a cohesive policy in Latin America. Hegemony implies, at the least, a controlling hand. We had economic clout and used force from time to time, but we never sought dominion in any sense.
But that's not true. We're to blame for all the ills of Latin America. His hero said so. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
hahahaha hahahaha, hahaha!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Stop, stop, you are giving me stomach pains here.
Do you actually believe that tripe you wrote? I will take it that instead of believing it, it is a love for your country and ignorance instead, which is just as bad, actually. Oh well, hahaha!
Oh dear, yeh the US has never had a policy of trying to gain social and political - and specifically economic - hegemony over South America, NEVER! hahaha.
And Tach, I am here and there ~;) Not posting much anymore, too busy getting drunk!
Laddie:Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
I never said we didn't do some of those things. I'd have to be pretty ignorant of US actions in Central America or the theft of Panama and a few other little "events."
All I was arguing is that we've really NEVER had a COHESIVE policy to do anything South of the Rio Grande. Bits and pieces of jumbled objectives, economic exploitation (and sometimes partnering), trying to throw our weight around to prevent communist takeovers. Aside from being consistently anti-communist/socialist regime from 1950-1990, what are the consistent components of this "hegemonic" effort?
The USA has always had a far more cohesive policy towards Europe than we ever did to our South. Mind you, I'm not saying that our cavalier attitude and behavior haven't contributed to the problems in SA, its very likely/damn near certain they have. That a lot of folks in SA would resent us for our ham-handed political efforts and economic power is pretty understandable.
Example: Our brillian political efforts during the Falklands crisis. Publicly claim no interest and thus sidestepping the Monroe Doctrine, while privately providing information to our long-time allies the British but NOT providing them the air cover that would have minimized casualties or even created a withdrawal with no casuaties on either side. End result: Argentina thinks we suck, several other SA countries agree. British public thinks we suck for not supporting an ally who bled for and with us during WW2. Basically, dumb FoPo effort all around.
So, where is the policy of domination that allowed us to create our New World Co-Prosperity Zone? Having established this fiefdom of satellite states bound to us by economic ties that favored the Hegemonic USA, why aren't we getting our resources smoothly and what's preventing us from keeping are satraps in line?
In other words, JAG, I don't see it. I'm not claiming we're angels, just that you're reading hegemony where I see a nothing but a pattern of haphazard reactionary efforts with little cohesion to it. If we'd really been trying to establish some kind of empire -- of course under another label -- I'd actually suspect we'd have screwed things up LESS.
I think he was looking for the Drunkards thread. Good to see the time at Uni is bieng put to good use...
~:smoking:
I think it is instructive to review the events of Weimar Germany from 1928 through 1934 in assessing the "appropriateness" of Chavez' actions.
Please note, I am referring to the means/process of converting a democracy into a dictatorship. Pres. Chavez does not appear to be interested in eugenics and his political stance is more socialist than national socialist. I ask you to consider some of the parallels in political machination.