- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,970
- Reaction score
- 2,154
Huh? The USA had bailouts and massive corruption everywhere, but that does not make Chavez a great guy by default.
hugo chavez... dead... days after protests asking wheres hugo
- Thread starter robert l. bentham
- Start date
Huh? The USA had bailouts and massive corruption everywhere, but that does not make Chavez a great guy by default.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
Mr. Chávez removed corrupt military officers and started a national reform programme. Venezuela, according to the United States Department of Energy, has the world’s largest oil reserves at 1.36 trillion barrels, and the new president promptly nationalised the main oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), putting the profits into very effective social programmes. Carles Mutaner, Joan Benach, and Maria Paez Victor note that between 2000 and 2010, social spending increased by 61 per cent or $772 billion; the country has the region’s lowest level of inequality, with a reduction in its Gini coefficient of 54 per cent. Poverty is down from 71 per cent in 1996 to 21 now, and extreme poverty is down from 40 per cent to 7.3. The social programmes, or Misiones, he started have reached 20 million people, and 2.1 million have received senior citizens’ pensions, a sevenfold increase under Mr. Chávez.
Social parameters
The country has also cut food imports from 90 per cent to 30 per cent of its consumption, and has reduced child malnutrition from 7.7 per cent in 1990 to 5 today; infant mortality has declined from 25/1000 to 13 in the same period, and the country now has 58 doctors per 10,000 people (as against 18 in 1996). As many as 96 per cent of the population now have access to clean water, and with school attendance at 85 per cent, one in three Venezuelans is enrolled in free education up to and including university.
Oil royalties help. A 2001 law cut the sale price share of foreign companies from 84 to 70 per cent, and they now pay royalties of 16.6 per cent on Orinoco basin heavy crude; they used to pay 1 per cent earlier. Exxon and Conoco Philips rejected these terms, as Deepak Bhojwani notes in the Economic and Political Weekly (December 22, 2012), and were expelled, but Chevron stayed.
Mr. Chávez of course infuriated the mainly white elites, some of whom talked of him in racist terms, as well as the United States government and press, both of which have consistently vilified him in language bordering on the delusional. The State Department greeted the 2002 coup against Mr. Chávez by expressing solidarity with the Venezuelan people and looking forward to “working with all democratic forces in Venezuela.” The statement also said Mr. Chávez had dismissed the Vice-President and Cabinet. In fact it was the coup figurehead, Pedro Carmona Estanga, who, according to the Notable Names Database, dissolved the national assembly, disbanded the Supreme Court, closed the attorney-general’s and comptroller’s offices, and repealed 48 redistributive laws meant to help the poor.
Yet huge public support for Mr. Chávez meant the putschist regime collapsed within days. The President was reinstated, but the then U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice hectored him to “respect the constitution.” Greg Palast points out in The Progressive that the George W. Bush administration’s National Security Strategy of 2006 called him a demagogue out to undermine democracy and destabilise Venezuela.
The U.S. press dutifully played its part. In September 2012, the WorldNet columnist Drew Zahn called Mr. Chávez a “socialist dictator”, when the President was about to win a fourth successive election. All those elections were of far greater probity than the respective U.S. presidential elections of 2000 and 2004; this time Mr. Chávez won by 11 percentage points on a turnout of 80 per cent. Other U.S. media bodies have spread partial truths about the Caracas government, saying it bloats the public sector and lets the budget deficit spiral. In fact, as Mark Weisbrot notes in the Guardian, 18.4 per cent of Venezuela’s work force is in the public sector, in contrast to Norway’s 29 per cent, and its 2012 budget deficit, projected at 51.3 per cent of GDP, is lower than the European Union average of 82.5 per cent; inflation has declined too, from 27 per cent in 2010 to 19 per cent now. Weisbrot also points out that the New York Times — which welcomed the coup — has taken 14 years, longer even than other American media outfits, to publish any arguments for Mr. Chávez. Carles Mutaner and colleagues comment that U.S. analysts ask what Venezuela will do when the oil runs out, but do not ask that about other oil exporters like Saudi Arabia and Canada; neither do critics note that the country’s interest payments are only about 3 per cent of export earnings.
On oil
One of Washington’s problems is that, as Greg Palast recognises, Mr. Chávez kept oil revenues within Latin America; unlike Saudi Arabia, which buys U.S. treasury bills and other assets, Venezuela at one point withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve, and since 2007 has aided other Latin American countries with $36 billion, most of which has been repaid back. In effect, this supplants the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and possibly also its neoliberal fellow-crusader the World Bank. Even more unpalatably for Washington, Chávismo represents a clear political programme for pan-Latin American transformation, which Palast calls a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, with progressive income tax, public works, social security, and cheap electricity. For Bolivarians, such things are rights; they are even reminiscent of T.H. Marshall’s view that they are integral to substantive citizenship. Worst of all for U.S. regional hegemony, Mr. Chávez himself said Venezuela is no longer an oil colony, that it has regained its oil sovereignty, and that he wanted to replace the IMF with an International Humanitarian Bank based on cooperation; Uruguay already pays for Venezuelan oil with cows. Mr. Chávez wished the IMF and the World Bank would “disappear”, and his passionate concern for Latin American countries’ sovereignty made him a decisive figure in the 2011 creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac).
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/hugo-chvez-death-of-a-socialist/article4481169.ece
Social parameters
The country has also cut food imports from 90 per cent to 30 per cent of its consumption, and has reduced child malnutrition from 7.7 per cent in 1990 to 5 today; infant mortality has declined from 25/1000 to 13 in the same period, and the country now has 58 doctors per 10,000 people (as against 18 in 1996). As many as 96 per cent of the population now have access to clean water, and with school attendance at 85 per cent, one in three Venezuelans is enrolled in free education up to and including university.
Oil royalties help. A 2001 law cut the sale price share of foreign companies from 84 to 70 per cent, and they now pay royalties of 16.6 per cent on Orinoco basin heavy crude; they used to pay 1 per cent earlier. Exxon and Conoco Philips rejected these terms, as Deepak Bhojwani notes in the Economic and Political Weekly (December 22, 2012), and were expelled, but Chevron stayed.
Mr. Chávez of course infuriated the mainly white elites, some of whom talked of him in racist terms, as well as the United States government and press, both of which have consistently vilified him in language bordering on the delusional. The State Department greeted the 2002 coup against Mr. Chávez by expressing solidarity with the Venezuelan people and looking forward to “working with all democratic forces in Venezuela.” The statement also said Mr. Chávez had dismissed the Vice-President and Cabinet. In fact it was the coup figurehead, Pedro Carmona Estanga, who, according to the Notable Names Database, dissolved the national assembly, disbanded the Supreme Court, closed the attorney-general’s and comptroller’s offices, and repealed 48 redistributive laws meant to help the poor.
Yet huge public support for Mr. Chávez meant the putschist regime collapsed within days. The President was reinstated, but the then U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice hectored him to “respect the constitution.” Greg Palast points out in The Progressive that the George W. Bush administration’s National Security Strategy of 2006 called him a demagogue out to undermine democracy and destabilise Venezuela.
The U.S. press dutifully played its part. In September 2012, the WorldNet columnist Drew Zahn called Mr. Chávez a “socialist dictator”, when the President was about to win a fourth successive election. All those elections were of far greater probity than the respective U.S. presidential elections of 2000 and 2004; this time Mr. Chávez won by 11 percentage points on a turnout of 80 per cent. Other U.S. media bodies have spread partial truths about the Caracas government, saying it bloats the public sector and lets the budget deficit spiral. In fact, as Mark Weisbrot notes in the Guardian, 18.4 per cent of Venezuela’s work force is in the public sector, in contrast to Norway’s 29 per cent, and its 2012 budget deficit, projected at 51.3 per cent of GDP, is lower than the European Union average of 82.5 per cent; inflation has declined too, from 27 per cent in 2010 to 19 per cent now. Weisbrot also points out that the New York Times — which welcomed the coup — has taken 14 years, longer even than other American media outfits, to publish any arguments for Mr. Chávez. Carles Mutaner and colleagues comment that U.S. analysts ask what Venezuela will do when the oil runs out, but do not ask that about other oil exporters like Saudi Arabia and Canada; neither do critics note that the country’s interest payments are only about 3 per cent of export earnings.
On oil
One of Washington’s problems is that, as Greg Palast recognises, Mr. Chávez kept oil revenues within Latin America; unlike Saudi Arabia, which buys U.S. treasury bills and other assets, Venezuela at one point withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve, and since 2007 has aided other Latin American countries with $36 billion, most of which has been repaid back. In effect, this supplants the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and possibly also its neoliberal fellow-crusader the World Bank. Even more unpalatably for Washington, Chávismo represents a clear political programme for pan-Latin American transformation, which Palast calls a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, with progressive income tax, public works, social security, and cheap electricity. For Bolivarians, such things are rights; they are even reminiscent of T.H. Marshall’s view that they are integral to substantive citizenship. Worst of all for U.S. regional hegemony, Mr. Chávez himself said Venezuela is no longer an oil colony, that it has regained its oil sovereignty, and that he wanted to replace the IMF with an International Humanitarian Bank based on cooperation; Uruguay already pays for Venezuelan oil with cows. Mr. Chávez wished the IMF and the World Bank would “disappear”, and his passionate concern for Latin American countries’ sovereignty made him a decisive figure in the 2011 creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac).
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/hugo-chvez-death-of-a-socialist/article4481169.ece
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
Chavez's Robin Hood thing, shifting oil money from the rich to the poor, would have been grudgingly tolerated by the US. But Chavez, who told me, "We are no longer an oil colony," went further - too much further, in the eyes of the American corporate elite.
Venezuela had landless citizens by the millions - and unused land by the millions of acres tied up, untilled, on which a tiny elite of plantation owners squatted. Chavez's congress passed a law in 2001 requiring untilled land to be sold to the landless. It was a program long promised by Venezuela's politicians at the urging of John F. Kennedy as part of his "Alliance for Progress."
Plantation owner Heinz Corporation didn't like that one bit. In retaliation, Heinz closed its ketchup plant in the state of Maturin and fired all the workers. Chavez seized the Heinz plant and put the workers back on the job. Chavez didn't realize that he'd just squeezed the tomatoes of America's powerful Heinz family and Mrs. Heinz' husband, Sen. John Kerry (now, Obama's nominee for US Secretary of State).
Or, knowing Chavez as I do, he didn't give a damn.
Chavez could survive the ketchup coup, the Exxon "presidency," even his taking back a piece of the windfall of oil company profits, but he dangerously tried the patience of America's least-forgiving billionaires: the Koch Brothers.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13800-big-oil-big-ketchup-and-the-assassination-of-hugo-chavez
Venezuela had landless citizens by the millions - and unused land by the millions of acres tied up, untilled, on which a tiny elite of plantation owners squatted. Chavez's congress passed a law in 2001 requiring untilled land to be sold to the landless. It was a program long promised by Venezuela's politicians at the urging of John F. Kennedy as part of his "Alliance for Progress."
Plantation owner Heinz Corporation didn't like that one bit. In retaliation, Heinz closed its ketchup plant in the state of Maturin and fired all the workers. Chavez seized the Heinz plant and put the workers back on the job. Chavez didn't realize that he'd just squeezed the tomatoes of America's powerful Heinz family and Mrs. Heinz' husband, Sen. John Kerry (now, Obama's nominee for US Secretary of State).
Or, knowing Chavez as I do, he didn't give a damn.
Chavez could survive the ketchup coup, the Exxon "presidency," even his taking back a piece of the windfall of oil company profits, but he dangerously tried the patience of America's least-forgiving billionaires: the Koch Brothers.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/13800-big-oil-big-ketchup-and-the-assassination-of-hugo-chavez
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
He wasn't a commie and his comments about Bush were impolite and amusing but that's not what I like about Chavez. It may be that my views are as shallow as a puddle but in comparison, your knowledge of him doesn't even amount to a damp patch.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
Before Chavez came to power Venezuela had a wealth distribution like the US, that is to say, the wealth distribution of a third world country. 80% of the people were poor and that's who voted for him. He leaves Venezuela the most egalitarian country in South America. The poor have healthcare and education now and participate in government. He enabled the poor to look after themselves and stopped the practice of selling the countries Non renewable resources far below their worth. Plenty of billionaires hated him for that but I am not going to shed a tear for a billionaire who loses a few million - they can afford it. If the US had a Chavez then it would have a middle class again.
edit -
Heck, just go read what robert l. bentham posted and remember - the slave master is never going to tell you how well the slave who got away is doing.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
Heavy crude sells at a large discount to light sweet crude. Only specially designed refineries can process heavy crude. The existing refineries to process heavy crude are located in Texas, originally built to process Venezuelan heavy crude.
Chavez has ruined the lifetime production of the Venezuelan oil fields, production has been dropping since he took power. The only big customer buying Venezuelan oil at the full market price is the United States, everyone else only purchases Venezuelan oil at a substantial discount (70% of market of light sweet) because it is heavy crude. Venezuela has proven reserves of 80 billion barrels, but since it is heavy crude it requires injection wells to maintain production, Chavez stopped the injection wells to cut costs.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
And Canada sells it's crude at a bigger discount and that's why the Koch brothers want to build the XL pipeline from Alberta all the way down across the US. Chavez charged more than Canada for the heavy crude. His was the only source that the Kochs could get a hold of so Chavez did not sell it for a song like a chump but got a better price, as he should.
Heavy crude sells at a large discount to light sweet crude. Only specially designed refineries can process heavy crude. The existing refineries to process heavy crude are located in Texas, originally built to process Venezuelan heavy crude.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2005
- Messages
- 1,888
- Reaction score
- 757
So, in essence, you support my point. If "Saint Hugo" was all you believe him to be then -- by very definition -- the next guy has to be worse...
I don't -- by the way -- consider the support of socialistic ideas to be a good thing.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
Do you wear a hairstyle that prevents understanding capitalism?
Until the XL pipeline is completed, Canadian crude is worth less, because it has more transportation costs to get to the refinery. Venezuelan oil only has to be shipped across the Gulf, port to port, minimal transportation costs
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
hmm... that's quite a stretch there... that is neither a necessary or natural conclusion to draw from what i posted, and i don't believe your initial "has to be worse 'cause cream rises to the top" statement was meant with the above comment in mind... or else you wouldn't have added the turd part....
what are socialistic ideas that you consider bad? the roads you drive your motorcycle on? the public school you attended? the job you go to that can't lock you inside in case of fire? those guys who show up in red trucks and funny hats when your home and all possessions are burning up in the night sky? or even the most socialistic notion of all, allowing a people to rule themselves by majority....
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 10,232
- Reaction score
- 3,006
Chavez's rhetoric conflicted with reality. He ran the country as a personality cult. He looted the country to fund himself and his red beret thugs. Venezuela is on the edge of financial collapse.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
cheney looted iraq to fund halliburton...u know... huge military conglomerate he owned lionshare of.... your point is... ? the conclusion i come to is this:
you sir are quibbling and moralizing over dantes different levels of hell erstwhile forgetting that an entire nation followed some pinheaded, peabrained, prick into war all because he had "texas swagger" and a daddy complex... cult of personality indeed... Venezuela as a whole, is over all healthier as a nation. if it is on the brink of collapse, then it will be for the very same reason as all others... theft and greed by banksters and the IMF.. same as our own....consolidation of money and power... what did anyone expect for the reward of greed?
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
obama has drones my friend... in spite of the good he has done, and he has... this will be his legacy to me for all times...
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,809
- Reaction score
- 794
So far, I've seen more pro's than cons considering the man.
Mind you, I don't like person-cults. If it doesn't corrupt, it still makes one dependent on a single man.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
You built the "Saint Hugo" strawman yourself so it's not too impressive to watch you knock it down. Chavez was better than the alternatives to Chavez but that does not mean he is the best that could ever be.
Yeah, evil stuff like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is pretty unseemly, isn't it. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" is all pretty airy fairy liberal values. If you are a human being and you are not a psychopath then you have socialistic tendencies, and we're just arguing about degrees.
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,256
- Reaction score
- 2,693
This is a political gift to the Koch brothers. It is ridiculous to shove this bitumen through a pie through sensitive land (and you know that the taxpayer will pick up the tab and suffer the consequences when this pipe leaks as they all do). We could build a cheap pipe locally and build a refinery locally and make much better money in Canada but and just ship out the refined product to the US and Canada instead of letting the crude go all the way down south and let the Koch brothers sell the refined product to the Caribbean. The pipeline is a gift to the Kochs and in return the Kochs kick Venezuela's oil revenue in the teeth. On the other hand - it does make the Kochs vulnerable to any nut with a bomb for 2000 miles.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 3,692
- Reaction score
- 863
hunh... now thats kind of a funny thought...
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 10,806
- Reaction score
- 6,533
This article is as near to how I feel about Chavez as anything else I've seen:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/chavez-continue-inspire-but-not-europe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/06/chavez-continue-inspire-but-not-europe