Leftists in mourning? Chavez set to lose...

[ThePrezMex]

Hi YoMartin. I do know who is the President of Ecuador. His name is Lucio Gutierrez. He had a similar background to Chavez', but fortunately, once in power he didn't follow the same policies.
Felipe Gonzalez in Spain, as well as Aznar, were fighting against a terrorist organization, not against the citizens of Spain. Chavez uses his Circulos Bolivarianos to threaten the civilian population that is opposed to him, namely the middle and upper classes. And He aids a terrorist organization like the FARC. You cannot compare Chavez with Felipe Gonzalez. Finally, I'm from Mexico, not the U.S.

John Ford: I answered your question about why I have a red avatar in the previous page. You read it?

[The Duke]

Hi YoMartin. I do know who is the President of Ecuador. His name is Lucio Gutierrez. He had a similar background to Chavez', but fortunately, once in power he didn't follow the same policies.
Felipe Gonzalez in Spain, as well as Aznar, were fighting against a terrorist organization, not against the citizens of Spain. Chavez uses his Circulos Bolivarianos to threaten the civilian population that is opposed to him, namely the middle and upper classes. And He aids a terrorist organization like the FARC. You cannot compare Chavez with Felipe Gonzalez. Finally, I'm from Mexico, not the U.S.

John Ford: I answered your question about why I have a red avatar in the previous page. You read it?

Read it.

Well, I guess there's no second chances for first impressions.  Just to point out, the Republican leadership in congress was very supportive of the Mexican bailout, as was I.  It just happenned to be Clinton who got most of the credit.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would argue that a more effective government would better supply oil to the US.  Really, how much has infrastructure improved under Chavez?  Is all of the division and instability in the country good for the American investments?  

Why should Venezuela care about how much oil it supplies to the US?  What it should care about is developing its own economy and people.  If exporting oil does that, then it should.  It it doesn't, it should try focusing the economy on other endeavors.  However, I can't think of a single example of a economy focused on the export of raw materials that has brought any lasting benefit to its people.  The elites often benefit as long the raw materials last, but the poor and middle classes suffer.in comparison to economies that produce finished goods or business services.  The success stories among the developing countries have not been those blessed with abundant raw materials.  In the long term, it woud be to the benefit of Venezuela and other OPEC members to have the importance of oil production in their economies decrease, not increase.

[Lunar]

Why should Venezuela care about how much oil it supplies to the US?  What it should care about is developing its own economy and people.  If exporting oil does that, then it should.  It it doesn't, it should try focusing the economy on other endeavors.  However, I can't think of a single example of a economy focused on the export of raw materials that has brought any lasting benefit to its people.  The elites often benefit as long the raw materials last, but the poor and middle classes suffer.in comparison to economies that produce finished goods or business services.  The success stories among the developing countries have not been those blessed with abundant raw materials.  In the long term, it woud be to the benefit of Venezuela and other OPEC members to have the importance of oil production in their economies decrease, not increase.

This is actually a valid point that I've read about.  Countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and many others that have had few natural resources have done very well, but those that are blessed tend to be corrupt and poorly off.

However, you have to consider the context of Venzuela rather than a broad, catagorical perspective.  Chavez is driving his country into the ground economically, hurting the infrastructure that is critical to a transition to a service-oriented economy, while also hurting oil exports.  The solution isn't simply to take away the oil, plenty of countries have also done terribly with few natural resources.

A liberal democracy replacing Chavez and ensuring stability would allow for a better infrastructure to be developed, which is what is necessary for both American investment and for lessening the importance of oil.

[angus]

Ernest always makes valid points.  and his state is shaped like a diamond.  and has a very peaceful and beautiful flag, unlike most others in the region.  I have to admit that the analysis caught me off-gaurd.  Mercantilism, sort of.  Oil, that is.  Black Gold, Texas tea.  "Well, the first thing ya know, old Jed's a millionaire..."  Delta (Trade) = constant is an old keynesian argument.  

en guarde!  Mercantilist theory also influences the bizarre notion that trade surpluses are automatically good and that trade deficits are automatically bad. Some economists argue that Japanese trade policy in the 1970s and 1980s was in large part based on mercantilist concepts and that these policies form one of the causes of Japanese economic stagnation in the 90s.  n'est ce-pas?  

But in all likelihood, we are at the mercy of the Venezuelan business class, at least as regards the price of your commute to work.  (unless, of course, you take your bicycle to work as I do, in which case this is entirely academic, but I digress...)  If you buy into that postulate, then it's easy to see that at least some of the Venezuelan population benefits.  Those beneficiaries of trade will presumably share their wealth with the people and generally improve their lives.  Remember, latinoamericanos generally have a greater ideal role for government than do 19/20 C. europeans and 20/21 C. angloamericans.  It does not follow from Europeans' economic experiments in Africa that the Venezuelans will not, as a whole, benefit by optimizing oil pricing vis-a-vis the US gasoline market.  Your tacit assumptions are somewhat broad, I think.  

I still say, with respect to the original question, that we make nice with whomever they elect.  Chavez is what a conservative might call a thug.  But he's venezuela's chosen thug.  And therefore a potential ally of the United States.  If I'm George Bush's bitch (aka Secretary Powell) I'm on a plane to Caracas to congratulate the honorable Mr. Chavez.

[YoMartin]

So, Yo Martin, you've been "following events a little more closely than" me?

That was what Umengus said, right before he claimed that Sanchez de Lozado and Andres Perez had never been elected.

I don't want to seem rude, but your defense of Chavez' death squads was idiotic.  You claimed that Chavez death squads should not be held against him because the number of people they have killed is "much less than in Guantanamo".  Exactly how many people in Guantanamo have been killed?  Idiot.

It is ludicrous to put Chavez on a pedestal with FDR simply because Chavez claims to support the poor.  Chavez is more a Huey Long.

I didn´t defend Chavez for that. But you keep talking about "death squads" and you haven´t even named one dead (I expect you do the homework now...). Of course Chavez is not a role model for democracy. Neither does the whole country, and that´s my point in his defense. Venezuela hadn´t had clean elections in decades. Furthermore, the opposition tried a coup, and probably a murder attempt, against him. The violent events that have occured, which were not systematic but rather isolated (considering the context) involved both Chavez supporters and opponents. But I ´wouldn´t dare to talk of death squads in any of both sides.

I don´t know how many people have been killed in Guantamano because, unlike Venezuela, there´s strict control over the press there (in both sides of the island, actually). But I believe it´s an outrage for a country with a great tradition of defending civil liberties to do such a thing.

[YoMartin]

Hi YoMartin. I do know who is the President of Ecuador. His name is Lucio Gutierrez. He had a similar background to Chavez', but fortunately, once in power he didn't follow the same policies.
Felipe Gonzalez in Spain, as well as Aznar, were fighting against a terrorist organization, not against the citizens of Spain. Chavez uses his Circulos Bolivarianos to threaten the civilian population that is opposed to him, namely the middle and upper classes. And He aids a terrorist organization like the FARC. You cannot compare Chavez with Felipe Gonzalez. Finally, I'm from Mexico, not the U.S.

John Ford: I answered your question about why I have a red avatar in the previous page. You read it?

I was trying to make a point, not checking if you did know the name... Or if you had the manual ability to search  "president of ecuador" on google... Yes, Felipe was fighting an organization outside the law. One could say the same thing about Chavez: he was fighting an organization that tried to break democracy and kill the president (remember the coup?). In my view, however, neither of both situations (which are +/- similar) are legitimate reasons for the state itself to break the law. That has usually costed too many lives in Latinamerica. On the other side, the ocasional breaking of the law by a president doesn´t turn him into a tyrannt. One can´t be so rigurous (especially in a continent where probably nobody left office without breaking some laws...). Chavez won 5 consecutive elections, civil liberties are respected as strongly (or as weakly) as in many other latinamerican countries, but he´s a stalinist dictator following totalitarian ideas... It´s absurd. I think his policies are absurd and inefficient. But more absurd is to consider him a dictator just for being the first guy in that country that opposed the traditional ruling class...

Since you can read spanish, I recommend you this interesting interview of a venezuelan politician who opposes Chavez but says he´s a legitimate president. It explains why Chavez is so popular although being a bad president (http://old.clarin.com/diario/2004/08/18/elmundo/i-02101.htm )

[The Duke]

So, Yo Martin, you've been "following events a little more closely than" me?

That was what Umengus said, right before he claimed that Sanchez de Lozado and Andres Perez had never been elected.

I don't want to seem rude, but your defense of Chavez' death squads was idiotic.  You claimed that Chavez death squads should not be held against him because the number of people they have killed is "much less than in Guantanamo".  Exactly how many people in Guantanamo have been killed?  Idiot.

It is ludicrous to put Chavez on a pedestal with FDR simply because Chavez claims to support the poor.  Chavez is more a Huey Long.

I didn´t defend Chavez for that. But you keep talking about "death squads" and you haven´t even named one dead (I expect you do the homework now...). Of course Chavez is not a role model for democracy. Neither does the whole country, and that´s my point in his defense. Venezuela hadn´t had clean elections in decades. Furthermore, the opposition tried a coup, and probably a murder attempt, against him. The violent events that have occured, which were not systematic but rather isolated (considering the context) involved both Chavez supporters and opponents. But I ´wouldn´t dare to talk of death squads in any of both sides.

I don´t know how many people have been killed in Guantamano because, unlike Venezuela, there´s strict control over the press there (in both sides of the island, actually). But I believe it´s an outrage for a country with a great tradition of defending civil liberties to do such a thing.

You have no evidence of even one person killed at Gitmo!

Never mind, I don't talk to fools.

[ThePrezMex]

Hi YoMartin. I do know who is the President of Ecuador. His name is Lucio Gutierrez. He had a similar background to Chavez', but fortunately, once in power he didn't follow the same policies.
Felipe Gonzalez in Spain, as well as Aznar, were fighting against a terrorist organization, not against the citizens of Spain. Chavez uses his Circulos Bolivarianos to threaten the civilian population that is opposed to him, namely the middle and upper classes. And He aids a terrorist organization like the FARC. You cannot compare Chavez with Felipe Gonzalez. Finally, I'm from Mexico, not the U.S.

John Ford: I answered your question about why I have a red avatar in the previous page. You read it?

I was trying to make a point, not checking if you did know the name... Or if you had the manual ability to search  "president of ecuador" on google... Yes, Felipe was fighting an organization outside the law. One could say the same thing about Chavez: he was fighting an organization that tried to break democracy and kill the president (remember the coup?). In my view, however, neither of both situations (which are +/- similar) are legitimate reasons for the state itself to break the law. That has usually costed too many lives in Latinamerica. On the other side, the ocasional breaking of the law by a president doesn´t turn him into a tyrannt. One can´t be so rigurous (especially in a continent where probably nobody left office without breaking some laws...). Chavez won 5 consecutive elections, civil liberties are respected as strongly (or as weakly) as in many other latinamerican countries, but he´s a stalinist dictator following totalitarian ideas... It´s absurd. I think his policies are absurd and inefficient. But more absurd is to consider him a dictator just for being the first guy in that country that opposed the traditional ruling class...

Since you can read spanish, I recommend you this interesting interview of a venezuelan politician who opposes Chavez but says he´s a legitimate president. It explains why Chavez is so popular although being a bad president (http://old.clarin.com/diario/2004/08/18/elmundo/i-02101.htm )

I'm posting here the latest column of Andres Oppenheimer from the Miami Herald. I consider him a really fair journalist and very knowledgeable on Latin American issues. Good analysis of what the Venezuelans can expect now, and talks also about the 'Circulos Bolivarianos'.

Posted on Tue, Aug. 17, 2004
 
 
 

THE OPPENHEIMER REPORT


Chávez could act to deepen his `revolution'

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER

aoppenheimer@herald.com


CARACAS - When firebrand leftist President Hugo Chávez said he would stay in power until 2021, he may not have been joking: People who know him well say he will interpret his proclaimed victory in Sunday's referendum as a mandate to deepen his ''revolution'' and install an elected dictatorship.

But before I say why I'm not so sure that he will succeed, let's state for the record that this was one of the most surprising elections I've seen in recent times. By Sunday night, there were unofficial exit polls by respected independent groups such as Súmate, which gave the opposition an 18 percentage-point lead. Then, at 3 a.m. Chávez proclaimed victory by a 16-point margin.

On Monday, while a shocked opposition was claiming electronic fraud, the Carter Center and the Organization of American States corroborated the Chávez victory. Barring evidence of fraud in coming days, the Carter Center and the OAS will enjoy the benefit of the doubt: In the past, they have been pretty good about confronting would-be dictators in Peru, Haiti and Panama.

If Chávez won, it was thanks to a combination of massive intimidation, unabashed use of state resources for propaganda, and the use of $1.6 billion from the country's oil income for cash subsidies to the poor. Chávez handed out $160 a month in cash to hundreds of thousands of people who for the first time received something concrete from their government.

PERSPECTIVES

While it's true that Chávez's fiery rhetoric has scared away investors, triggered capital flight, forced the closing of nearly 7,000 companies and has left Venezuela with two million more poor people than when Chávez took office five years ago, it is also true that none of this matters to millions of people who never have had formal jobs and have no expectations of ever getting any. To them, the cash in hand may have been more meaningful than opposition promises that economic growth would bring about jobs for everyone.

In addition, intimidation was visible everywhere. The Chávez government in recent months fired thousands of government workers who had signed a 3.4-million signature petition to hold Sunday's referendum. And it installed 12,000 fingerprinting machines in voting places for Sunday's vote, allegedly to keep people from voting twice, but at the same time spreading fears that people's vote would not be secret.

BIG PRESENCE

On Thursday, while touring the downtown Caracas area of El Centro, I saw the whole place covered with pro-Chávez signs but not one single one from the opposition.

''Every time the opposition tries to put up a sign, the chavistas beat them violently,'' the opposition mayor of Caracas, Alfredo Peña, told me. ``My own office has been attacked 26 times by armed chavistas on the government payroll.''

People who know Chávez well say that he will behave like an altar boy for a few days and will radicalize his revolution shortly afterward.

Chávez already controls Congress, the Supreme Court, the electoral tribunal, the central bank, the armed forces and the PDVSA oil monopoly. Pro-Chávez legislators in Congress have already proposed bills to curtail press freedoms and to dismantle the Caracas police and other local police forces run by opposition mayors. In addition, Chávez has promised to strengthen his Bolivarian Circles, his Cuban-modeled neighborhood watch committees.

Still, it won't be easy for Chávez to install a Cuban-style dictatorship. He has 45 percent of the population passionately against him. And he may not want to risk international rejection by closing down opposition media, which are the last line of defense against his near-absolute powers.

In the end, whether Chávez turns into a full-blown dictator may depend on oil prices. World oil prices have soared from $9 a barrel when Chávez took office five years ago to a near record $45 a barrel today, which has allowed Chávez to reverse a dramatic fall in the polls last year.

But, unless the current oil bonanza lasts a long time, there is no way Chávez will be able to maintain his generosity. Venezuela has become poorer under his rule, and now there are millions more people demanding instant gratification. Chávez won't have it easy.
 

[2952-0-0]

Let's cut through this spin:

First, the polls showed Chavez defeat because poor people (and Chavez amigos) don't have PHONES AND CANNOT BE POLLED!!

Second, no one in the US cares about Venezuela because it's just another South American nation. However if oil workers strike it would raise oil prices, maybe even to $55/barrel.

[Lunar]

Let's cut through this spin:

First, the polls showed Chavez defeat because poor people (and Chavez amigos) don't have PHONES AND CANNOT BE POLLED!!

Exit polls are conducted in person with the voters as they exit the voting booth.  I believe three respected firms showed 20 point leads against Chavez.

Second, no one in the US cares about Venezuela because it's just another South American nation. However if oil workers strike it would raise oil prices, maybe even to $55/barrel.

I care about the country.  It is in terrible shape and could be doing so much b etter.