Venezuela - Dark Days Ahead

[tvashtarkatena]

the guy is NOT head-of-state material.

 

Quite a few Venezuelans apparently think that he is.

 

Oh well, that's democracy for you. No passport, no vote.

[Dave_Schuldt]

So we're adicted to oil.

The nut cases have most of the oil.

We support those nut cases.

We bitch about them.

They wouldn't have any influence it they didn't have any money.

 

Look Chavez is a nut case, but he doesn't scare me like those nut cases in the Mid East. Chavez doesn't think he's on a mission from God.

 

It all comes down to money. The Arabs take our money and buy our products and finance our debt. Chavez takes our money and spends it elsewhere.

 

How long will it be before the CIA kills him?

I love it when he goes after Bush so I hope he lives till Bush is out of office.

 

[Dave_Schuldt]

Scary shit. His loud guttoral ranting coordinated with the flailing hand gestures then followed by strategic pause reminds me of Hitler - while his endless repeat, rephrase, rehash of the same rant harkens Castro. Even if you agree with his hatred of Bush you must admit that the guy is NOT head-of-state material. Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that one.

 

AND YOU THINK THE SAUDIES ARE ANY BETTER?

[prole]

 

Article

 

Despite his "complete respect" for private property, I'd probably vote for him. Yeah, he'd have to scrap the constitutional reforms aimed at unlimited runs for presidential office. Other than that? Sure, I'd cast a ballot his way. What's the big deal anyway? Lots of "whack-job" comments around here but not much to back it up.

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

Article

 

Despite his "complete respect" for private property, I'd probably vote for him. Yeah, he'd have to scrap the constitutional reforms aimed at unlimited runs for presidential office. Other than that? Sure, I'd cast a ballot his way. What's the big deal anyway? Lots of "whack-job" comments around here but not much to back it up.

 

 

 

 

How dare you claim that Chavez has respected property rights, you little punk. Why do junior commies like you and Jim have to blatantly lie to make your points? Talk about denial-flavored Koolaid! Try waking up to the world outside that small-time campus on which you reside and educating yourself about how the real world works. You are un-fucking believable.

 

http://www.landaction.org/display.php?article=265

(even your lefty friends agree!)

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=aLJI6oIrRB8s

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/03/desperate_cry_from_venezuelas.html

(from the right)

 

http://www.inblogs.net/oilwars/2005/09/fascist-or-fair-deal.html

 

http://www.analitica.com/va/ttim/international/4969131.asp

(a latin perspective)

 

http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=1426

(more lefties agree that its "seizure")

 

 

...seems the only ones who reject the term "land seizure" as it relates to Chavez are mental lightweights who have somehow established themselves - in their own little minds - as thinkers!

[tvashtarkatena]

I'd be pretty uncomfortable voting for Chavez, unless the alternative was a fucking moron who likes to start wars based on lies and bizarre pet theories that are completely divorced from reality, but that would be pretty unlikely, wouldn't it?

 

One, I don't trust any leader who is too enamored by his own cult of personality, as Chavez clearly is.

 

Two, Chavism aims to help the poor through a program of entitlements that do not necessarily demand much from them in return. It smacks of being a populists giveaway to further support the notion that everything good must come from Daddy Chavez. It's unclear at this point whether or not these policies will move people out of poverty in a systemic way verses giving them some short term chump change while oil prices remain high.

 

Three, Hugo's price controls, and central control in general, seem to be inflationary over the long term, and so could easily wipe out the social gains he's attempting to make and the economic expansion that has occured over the three years.

 

Four, his threats against the free press are telling in a very bad way.

 

I do agree with his anti-imperialist philosophy (would anyone with truly democratic principles not?), his attempts to create a self reliant Latin America, and his apparent concern for improving the lot of Venezuela's substantial poor population.

 

As for Chavism's respect for private property, here's a cute but certainly not unique little story from our own private property worshipping nation: former Enron executive Lou Pai left the company with over $250 million of other people's hard earned money to become the second largest land owner in Colorado. He was never indicted.

 

Fuck private property.

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

...seems the only ones who reject the term "land seizure" as it relates to Chavez are mental lightweights who have somehow established themselves - in their own little minds - as thinkers!

 

Of course they are land seizures; is anyone denying this fact? It can be called "reappropriation", "removal from the hands of the wicked(!)", "egalitarianization", etc etc, but the government, as an agent of the peoples' will(!), are "seizing" land.

 

Now is this any different than land seizure under capitalism?

With capitalism, land seizure occurs when those with money bribe others with money(!) for a deed to a piece of this earth of ours. This happens to be the framework that most of this earth is living under, and it's such an ingrained framework that it rarely gets a fair hearing (I struggle with it myself, being a land-owner and looking to invest further).

 

And then there's rent! Legalized extortion! I'll let you stay on my property, but only if you give me something in return!

 

Then look at Venezuela, where poverty is so endemic, and the rich own huge tracts of land that they sit on, often doing nothing with them while the poor can't even get a piece of land to grow their own food! Is this fair?

 

"Respect for property rights", some whine about; what about respect for HUMAN rights?

[JayB]

How would you rate the success of the equivalent "land-reforms" that occured under Mugabe?

 

The case of Zimbabwe is instructive - as is the case of the experiments against reality conducted in England under Attlee, in France during the early days of Mitterand, and pretty much every other attempt to use some mechanism other than price to allocate resources and coordinate supply and demand - and illustrates the extent to which the temporary oil-windfall has insulated the populace from experiencing the true effects of Chavez's economic policies. The oil-windfall will affect the length of time it takes to arrive at the same destination, but not the destination itself.

 

I invite anyone who disputes this to take their life savings and irrevocably convert it to Bolivars. If you are correct, Chavez's prudent stewardship of the Venuezuelan economy will not only protect the value of your assets, but lead to a significant real-increase in their value over time.

 

Property rights versus human rights? Are these two always at odds? The historical record suggests otherwise, and shows that the states that have the inclination and power to seize their citizens' property aren't terribly keen on respecting any other rights that the citizens claim to posess either.

 

 

 

 

[JayB]

 

Red = nations with the least economic freedom.

Green = nations with the most economic freedom.

[G-spotter]

"Property is freedom." - Proudhon

"Property is theft." - also Proudhon

[tvashtarkatena]

"Investement"? Is that the part of the bible where Jesus tells his followers that they deserve to be rich?

[sexual_chocolate]

How would you rate the success of the equivalent "land-reforms" that occured under Mugabe?

 

I would rather you justify your choice of comparison before answering. Yes, with broad brush strokes one may lump both mugabe and chavez into the same camp, but enough differentiation exists that these must be accounted for in order to validate a comparison (this comes from someone who is not, mind you, an unequivocal chavista).

 

The case of Zimbabwe is instructive - as is the case of the experiments against reality conducted in England under Attlee, in France during the early days of Mitterand, and pretty much every other attempt to use some mechanism other than price to allocate resources and coordinate supply and demand - and illustrates the extent to which the temporary oil-windfall has insulated the populace from experiencing the true effects of Chavez's economic policies. The oil-windfall will affect the length of time it takes to arrive at the same destination, but not the destination itself.

 

I would define "reality" as something a little more than "naturalistic capitalism", so a political or economic response to ANY prevailing system isn't so much an argument against "reality" as it is a response to a given set of circumstances developed and adopted by a grouping of human organisms.

 

Having said that, my only concern with your suggestion above is that no room is given for a future outcome other than one based on your presumption about chavez's intent.

 

I won't make such a presumption myself. I'm curious to see where things go down there, and what kind of choices chavez etal make. With his emphasis on education, trade, agriculture, etc, along with what I believe to be a sincere concern for the inequities in latin countries (his family history is pretty interesting), I would think that he knows the future of oil dependency, and is gearing towards the day when oil will no longer provide what is needed.

 

Property rights versus human rights? Are these two always at odds? The historical record suggests otherwise, and shows that the states that have the inclination and power to seize their citizens' property aren't terribly keen on respecting any other rights that the citizens claim to posess either.

 

The idea of "private property" fascinates me. I believe it's a vestige of a primitive past, a codified response to the historic struggle for survival we as humans presumably underwent.

Unfortunately, in my eyes it keeps that past alive in the present, inculcating its peculiar brand of subtle oppression on every new generation that comes along.

 

 

Your graph above needs some disection (not only for source!). There have been socialist countries that have done better than most free-market countries in literacy and health-care (certainly cuba), as have there been devastating failures when some countries have adopted free market systems.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Which bar represents China?

[cj001f]

Where's the spot for America? We stole the land from the hegemonic rulers who weren't doing anything with it - now look at us!

[JayB]

There have also been devastating failures when retarded people have attempted to operate a car, but this does not invalidate the automobile as a mode of transport for people capable of understanding how to operate it. Not so for Socialism.

 

The notion of private property as a vestige of the ancient past is interesting, given that that the entire set of beliefs and legal protections surrounding private property has a genesis that is quite a bit more recent than hunter/gatherer collectivism. Private property emerged along with written language, the concept of law, and civilization. Accident? I think not. If anything is genuinely atavistic, it's the naive longing for a heavily romanticized collectivist past that, whenever and wherever it's been exhumed in the present - has brought repression and ruin along with it.

 

The fact that, say, the Soviet Union and Maoist China or Fidel's Cuba have been able to increase literacy rates seems to be a rather minor accolade in light of what else the population went through. Totalitarianism can be a sufficient means of bringing some particular end about - but the fact that large swaths of the planet have learned to read and write without having a gun pointed at their heads or their food rationed suggests that it's not necessary.

[cj001f]

The fact that, say, the Soviet Union and Maoist China or Fidel's Cuba have been able to increase literacy rates seems to be a rather minor accolade in light of what else the population went through.

 

You didn't really write that, did you?

 

Nothing says arrogant elite like disregarding education and literacy

[Fairweather]

 

Of course they are land seizures; is anyone denying this fact? It can be called "reappropriation", "removal from the hands of the wicked(!)", "egalitarianization", etc etc, but the government, as an agent of the peoples' will(!), are "seizing" land.

 

Now is this any different than land seizure under capitalism?

With capitalism, land seizure occurs when those with money bribe others with money(!) for a deed to a piece of this earth of ours. This happens to be the framework that most of this earth is living under, and it's such an ingrained framework that it rarely gets a fair hearing (I struggle with it myself, being a land-owner and looking to invest further).

 

And then there's rent! Legalized extortion! I'll let you stay on my property, but only if you give me something in return!

 

Then look at Venezuela, where poverty is so endemic, and the rich own huge tracts of land that they sit on, often doing nothing with them while the poor can't even get a piece of land to grow their own food! Is this fair?

 

"Respect for property rights", some whine about; what about respect for HUMAN rights?

 

So does this mean you're going to let some homeless man squat on that nice sailboat you own... rent-free? (The one you're trying to rent out on another thread.) Put your money where your mouth is SC! Ahh, but of course it's left-leaning folks like you who prefer to be generous only with other people's money and property, no?

 

Honestly, you do make a point about private property but on an unrelated level: Do any of us really own property insomuch as witholding tribute from Ceasar will result in government foreclosure?

 

 

 

[JayB]

Which bar represents China?

 

How would this do anything other than reinforce the graph's central point?

 

 

[JayB]

"You didn't really write that, did you?

 

Nothing says arrogant elite like disregarding education and literacy "

 

 

The fact remains that political repression and poverty are not prerequisites for increasing literacy, so the fact that totalitarian states have been able to increase literacy doesn't strike me as a significant triumph for these regimes. Given that they generally have had to resort to fences, guards, and extreme repression to keep their populations from fleeing, it's clear that the people that have actually had to live under these systems didn't think that the tradeoff was all that great either.

 

 

 

[G-spotter]

Private property emerged along with written language, the concept of law, and civilization.

 

You steal my dead mammoth, I crush you skull wit club. Ugh.

[cj001f]

The fact remains that political repression and poverty are not prerequisites for increasing literacy, so the fact that totalitarian states have been able to increase literacy doesn't strike me as a significant triumph for these regimes. Given that they generally have had to resort to fences, guards, and extreme repression to keep their populations from fleeing, it's clear that the people that have actually had to live under these systems didn't think that the tradeoff was all that great either.

 

Hey, freemarket reforms didn't bring liberty swinging into Chile either - and plenty of people emigrated during that time - but I've never heard you talk bad about economic reforms because of that.

[sexual_chocolate]

There have also been devastating failures when retarded people have attempted to operate a car, but this does not invalidate the automobile as a mode of transport for people capable of understanding how to operate it.

 

Retarded people! Classic.

 

Capitalism is not a car. It never was and never will be, even though you seem to view it as such. It is a myth of the given to assume that somehow capitalism is a purely objective functionally complete machine, needing only the proper driving lessons for anyone and everyone to enjoy the ride.

 

The notion of private property as a vestige of the ancient past is interesting, given that that the entire set of beliefs and legal protections surrounding private property has a genesis that is quite a bit more recent than hunter/gatherer collectivism. Private property emerged along with written language, the concept of law, and civilization. Accident? I think not. If anything is genuinely atavistic, it's the naive longing for a heavily romanticized collectivist past that, whenever and wherever it's been exhumed in the present - has brought repression and ruin along with it.

 

I think you misunderstood my point: I do not long for a romanticized past, nor do I think of private property as a vestige of the past in the sense you think above. I think of the notion of "private property" more as a way that a select few learned to protect territory and themselves.

 

 

The fact that, say, the Soviet Union and Maoist China or Fidel's Cuba have been able to increase literacy rates seems to be a rather minor accolade in light of what else the population went through. Totalitarianism can be a sufficient means of bringing some particular end about - but the fact that large swaths of the planet have learned to read and write without having a gun pointed at their heads or their food rationed suggests that it's not necessary.

 

I think literacy is hardly a minor accolade, nor housing and health care for all.

 

remember that without a major influx of cash, the capitalists would probably have lost the mid-nineties elections in russia. funny that those so oppressed by communism would have voted the communists back into power! (if I remember correctly, the communist candidate at one point had over fifty percent support in pre-election polls.)

[sexual_chocolate]

The fact remains that political repression and poverty are not prerequisites for increasing literacy, so the fact that totalitarian states have been able to increase literacy doesn't strike me as a significant triumph for these regimes. Given that they generally have had to resort to fences, guards, and extreme repression to keep their populations from fleeing, it's clear that the people that have actually had to live under these systems didn't think that the tradeoff was all that great either.

 

Hey, freemarket reforms didn't bring liberty swinging into Chile either - and plenty of people emigrated during that time - but I've never heard you talk bad about economic reforms because of that.

 

Dude, surely you are joking right? There would have been perfect liberty if everyone had simply agreed with pinochet.

[sexual_chocolate]

or was it kissinger?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I think literacy is hardly a minor accolade, nor housing and health care for all.

 

The fruits of Iosif Vissarionovich's literacy and health care program. Something for the left and SC to be proud of! Accolades indeed.