Community | November 30, 2009 | 118 comments

Chavez threatens to nationalize Venezuelan banks

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091129/wl_nm/us_venezuela_banks_chavez_1

Image
UrbanGypsy
CARACAS (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday he could nationalize private banks unless they comply with the law, adding he had "no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor."

In a broadcast from nationalized farmland in central Venezuela, he said: "To all the country's private bankers ... (I'm saying) he who slips up loses; I'll take over the bank, whatever its size."

"You want me to nationalize the banks?" he said during the broadcast of his weekly TV show "Alo Presidente."

"I have no problem with that because the banks don't want to extend credit to the poor, they don't comply, they don't want to comply with the bank's purpose for existence, and that is the law."

Chavez said the purpose of banks was not to enrich a small group of people but "should be to collect funds and savings to help aid the country's development by making loans, extending credits for housing."

In power for a decade, Chavez has nationalized broad swathes of the economy.

His banking nationalization threats on Sunday appeared to be broader in scope than his well-publicized warnings in recent years to nationalize Spanish-owned banks in Venezuela.

He repeatedly threatened to seize Spanish bank subsidiaries in Venezuela unless Spain's king apologized for telling him to "shut up" in November 2007 at a regional summit where Chavez branded a recent ex-Spanish prime minister a fascist.

But the only major private bank, foreign or Venezuelan, to fall into state hands under Chavez's rule was Spain's Banco Santander unit Banco de Venezuela, sold to Venezuela in July for $1.05 billion.

The government's last banking takeover was on November 20, when it seized four small banks, accounting for about 6 percent of Venezuela's deposits.

Finance Minister Ali Rodriguez then said the move stemmed from concerns about credit portfolios, problems explaining the source of funds and failure to comply with some obligations.

BANKERS NOT IN COMPLIANCE - CHAVEZ

Chavez spoke Sunday from the countryside behind a table strewn with a jumble of books, maps and documents, against the background of farmland growing black beans.

Addressing the banking theme, he said unnamed bankers "are not complying, they do not want to comply with the function for which a bank should exist (such as) that is in the law.

"This is occurring right now with a group of private banks, that's a demonstration that those private banking sectors don't want to learn, they don't want to accept that there is a constitution ... and that there are laws."

Venezuela's banking sector is dominated by 10 banks that control 70 percent of the total funds.

Chavez said he ordered the nation's chief prosecutor to investigate why a state bank, Banfoandes, deposited "a giant amount of resources in private banks."

"How is it that state resources, which belong to the people ... end up being placed in private banks?" he asked in his broadcast. "This is counterrevolutionary."

The four banks seized on November 20 were Banco Confederado, Banco Canarias, Banco Provivienda and bolivar Banco.

On Friday, a court acting on prosecutors' request banned travel abroad of 16 executives -- eight from Confederado, six from Provivienda and two from bolivar Banco.

Chavez said if it were up to him, he would have jailed the 16 executives due to flight risk. "They have (their own) light aircraft and private airports and (can) leave."

Chavez also criticized what he termed as excessive spending by state entities in the private medical sector.

"We have made a gift of millions and millions of bolivares this year to the bourgeoisie, which owns the private clinics, the great insurance companies," he said. "Enough already."

He said those funds should go directly to "the people."
  1. groups:
    Community,   Current Tonight,   Max and Jason: Still Up
  2. tags:
    News,  Socialism,  Venezuela,  Latin America,  2 more
  3.     
    |

118 comments // Chavez threatens to nationalize Venezuelan banks

  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • Image

    • @2hellnwait...regarding poverty in Venezuela.

      http://www.cepr.net/documents/venezuelan_poverty_rates_2006_05.pdf

      Over the past year, the statement that poverty in Venezuela has increased under the government of President Hugo Chávez has appeared in scores of major newspapers, on major television and radio programs, and even journals such as Foreign Affairs1 and Foreign Policy.2 (See Appendix for a sample of such statements.) These statements have only rarely been contested or corrected.

      For example, writing in the May/June 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs, Mexico’s former Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda stated that “Venezuela’s poverty figures and human development indices have deteriorated since 1999, when Chávez took office.”3 A May 11, 2006 news article in the Financial Times was headlined “Chavez opts for oil-fuelled world tour while progress slows on social issues; Challengers point to failures in housing and poverty ahead of December's elections,”4 and questions whether poverty has been reduced under the Chávez administration.

      This paper looks at the available data on poverty in Venezuela, which show a reduction in poverty since 1999, as well as related economic data. The paper also briefly notes how some of the mistakes surrounding the discussion of this issue have been made. Finally, we also look at the impact of the provision of health care to the poor, which has been greatly expanded over the last few years.

      TABLE 1Venezuela: Poverty Rates, 1997-2005
      YearTime PeriodHouseholds Below Poverty Line (%)People Below Poverty Line (%) 1997 1st half 55.6 60.94
      2nd half 48.1 54.48
      1998 1st half 49.0 55.44
      2nd half 43.9 50.40
      1999 1st half 42.8 49.99
      2nd half 42.0 48.69
      2000 1st half 41.6 48.31
      2nd half 40.4 46.34
      2001 1st half 39.1 45.51
      2nd half 39.0 45.38
      2002 1st half 41.5 48.13
      2nd half 48.6 55.36
      2003 1st half 54.0 61.00
      2nd half 55.1 62.09
      2004 1st half 53.1 60.15
      2nd half 47.0 53.90
      2005 1st half 42.4 48.80
      2nd half 37.9 43.70

      Source: Venezuela's National Statistics Institute (INE, República Bolivariana de Venezuela)

      Based on the data above, in 1999 almost 61% of individuals lived below the poverty line, as of 2005 it fell to almost 44%.

      You stating that poverty is like 80% is completely bull.

      Comparison with Argentina for possible anomaly's.......

      For example, if we look at what happened to poverty in Argentina, where a similar amount of growth took place during 2003-2005, we find a much steeper reduction in the poverty rate. During this period, the percentage of households living in poverty fell from 41.2 percent for the first half of 2003 to 22.5 for the second half of 2005.12 This is a drop of 18.7 percentage points, or a 45.4 percent reduction in the number of households living below the poverty line.

      So there is no economic reason to question the decline in the poverty rate that occurred from the beginning of 2004 to the end of 2005. The amount of poverty reduction that occurred is also consistent with econometric estimates of the elasticity of poverty rates with respect to economic growth.

    • 2 years ago
  • 2hellnwait
    • 0
      2hellnwait  

    • @jubal, there is nothing to be admired about a despot, unless you're a wannabe.
      "I laugh at all of you who think you have upward mobility without money to back you up."
      . . . and the relevance concerning the governing authority of Chavez, that would be the average Venezuelan, would it not?

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  

    • What I find hilarious is that people still think they have a democracy in America. Looks like the real rulers have done a good job fooling everyone by having a two party system and letting the political winds blow left to right and right to left depending on how restless the populace becomes. In the end, its just an illusion of freedom and democracy.

      Hate Chavez all you want for being a despot, at least he is honest and putting the truth out there, instead of being like the elite in this country who aren't even loyal to the US. Their power is hidden from public view, while Chavez is right there for all the world to see and hate as the case may be.

      I laugh at all of you who think you have upward mobility without money to back you up.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  

    • @curtisreed, are you saying that the Center for Economic Policy Research is lying about their figures? Because that is where I got mine.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • 0
      RaceBannon  

    • its funny but this is the same problem with Iran, they radicalized after being screwed with by american spies and now because they chant death to america we think they're bad, as if they weren't provoked. Really our government just wants to open their malls in tehran. It never has anything to do with freedom

    • 2 years ago
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  

    • The IBC and world bank are nothing more than extensions of the US conglomorates that wish to exploit resources in third world nations. The continued rape of nations under the guise of world development loans are a scam that has been perpetuated for decades. Chavez knows this very well and will stop at nothing to prevent that happening anywhere around him. Jubal is once agin right on the money (no pun intended) when it comes to how Venezuala is being treated by the world banking community.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • http://www.veneconomia.com/site/index.asp?idim=2&ids=6&sec=2#

      Chavez's overreliance on the Oil industry is what is going to hurt Venezuela, as oil production begins to fall and other sources of oil are found. The house of cards is going to fall.

      Published in Veneconomia, the article titled "Venezuela in Recession":

      This week, the Central Bank issued a report on the economy’s performance in the third quarter of the year, announcing that the balance of payments posted a surplus of $2.95 billion. This “positive” result has nothing to do with the strength of the external sector of the economy, but to irresponsible borrowing.
      As for the economy, the Central Bank reports that it is on the slippery slide with a contraction of 4.5% in the third quarter, confirming that the country has entered into a full-blown depression.

      The Central Bank’s report indicates that the non-oil economy experienced a contraction of 3%, 1.4 points more than in the previous quarter, attributable to the fact that the production of tradable goods fell by 8.2% and import duties shrank by 9.5%. This contraction is reflected in the most important areas of the economy, to whit: manufacturing, which plummeted by 9.2%, and mining, with a nosedive of 18.3%. The contraction was not bigger thanks to growth in communications (11.4%), construction (4.3%), and government services (2.3%).
      The oil economy shrank by 9.5%, due mainly to the fact that fewer barrels are being produced and that production costs are constantly rising. Unfortunately, instead of confronting this situation responsibly and proposing credible, sustainable policies to overcome the economic crisis, the Venezuelan Government is evading the issue.

      On the one hand, it is putting the blame on everyone and everything, except the communist path on which it has set the productive system, among them: a) the world crisis, even though President Chávez had sworn that Venezuela would not be affected by it; b) the private sector, which it has besieged with its anti-private enterprise policies; and c) the production cuts imposed by OPEC.

      On the other hand, as it did with the National Statistics Institute when it changed the method for calculating unemployment and inflation, now it is toying with the possibility of making “adjustments” in the measurements of Gross Domestic Product in order to adapt them to the socialist economy. According to Central Bank Director Bernardo Ferrán, production should be weighted on the basis of the employment it generates, not on its true contribution to the creation of value. Moments later, this criterion was tacitly endorsed by President Chávez at an event in the Teresa Carreño Theater, when he questioned the mechanisms for measuring GDP, since, as he understands it, “they obey capitalist logic and, therefore, are not appropriate for an economy that is moving towards socialism.”
      But no matter how hard the government tries, it will find it extremely difficult to cover up the economy’s red figures, as that is something the people feel in their empty pockets.

      And if the government continues implementing policies of state takeovers, imposing controls right and left, and legislating the private productive sector out of existence, the distortions that this generates will continue to thrive and intensify the economic crisis into which it has plunged Venezuela.

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      I felt obliged to post this because of the "facts" and figures that have been posted erlier by some here in the comments. The fact that the government reports its own figures and that it has even changed the methodology for calculating them betrays the illusion of a booming economy... all real indictors point to the slow collapse of the Venezuelan economy.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  

    • So here are the talking points from the Anti-Chavez crowds. They use the following buzz words intended on triggering emotional responses and fan the flames. These talking points are aimed at Chavez and the 60% of the people of Venezuela who support him. They are as follows:

      Socialist
      Communist
      Bolibugeosie
      Dictator
      Leeches
      Parasites
      State Ownership
      Easy to hate the rich
      Uneducated poor who cannot govern themselves
      Not a Democracy but Mob Rule

      Are you noticing a pattern here? I do.

      I think that the facts from the Center For Economic Policy Research contradicts every one of these arguments.

      Part of the issue that you all are not even commenting on or bringing up is how the Interantional banking cartels have been marginalizing Venezuela's currency, in spite of the GDP and the improving economic outlook in Venezuela. Based on their numbers their currency should be close to 2 of theirs to one US$. But the IBC is forcing them to trade at 1950 to one US$. This has created a black market that the IBC is taking advantage of where they are charging 6000 of theirs to one US$.

      You talk about economic devastation of the other sectors of the economy besides oil, therein lies your black hole. Its not Chavez and his new socialist elite, its still the IBC at work to destroy Chavez by denying its citizens their economic due.

      If you go to the Venezuela Central Bank website and look up interest rates on Automobile Acquisitions and Home Mortgage rates you will see what I am talking about.

      Interest rates currently range from 17.5% to 27% depending on credit worthiness, also as determined by the IBC.

      Who is raping who? It seems pretty clear to me that Capitalism under the guise of the World Bank and the IMF are raping anyone and everyone who tries to self govern and their huge propaganda machine, because they own most of the International media, paint a grossly manipulated image. They call those who seek economic freedom from centralized banking authority rule of the IBC and WTO as terrorists. And they have all you conservatives and libertarians and many Democrats as well, eating out of their hands and lapping up their propaganda like so much ice cream.

    • 2 years ago
  • voxaustralis
    • 0
      voxaustralis  
    • jubal:

      Jubal clearly you don’t understand what is going on in Venezuela. Many of the economic problems are caused by the current regime’s actions. there are no external factors besides the current economic crisis which is self- induced by miss management and vast amounts of corruption. Every nationalization of industries and invasion agricultural lands has clearly hurt the economy of Venezuela. One of the reasons why the state takes this action that is to fully control the means of production of raw materials in the country and use it for the interests of the state both domestically and internationally(PDVSA and the Cement and industries are an examples of this).

      The other reason is that he wants to established price controls on goods (food primarily) that are so unbelievably low that hurt the producers thus creating conflict and a reason to intervene. The land or industry that is intervened is mismanaged by the cronies that are with Chavez. I agree that there is a black market(more of a parallel realistic market) which is a consequence of a control of currency exchange implemented by the state in order to keep an unrealistically low exchange rate to control the limited number of goods that are in the market.

      I don’t see the improving economic outlook tin Venezuela, it looks rather grim to me

    • 2 years ago
  • voxaustralis
    • 0
      voxaustralis  

    • Venezuela was a democracy ten years ago, I think it is naive to actually think that Venezuela is a democracy now. It is basically a one party limited access social order centralized and ruled by Hugo Chavez with an opposition movement that is worthless( with the exception of the student movement and a few political figures that basically cannot run because Chavez blocked them) because they are divided into little self interested parties that want power back in their hands after Chavez is gone, they fail to accomplish something significant because they have not set their differences aside to unite against a common enemy and provide a legitimate, qualified alternative that can challenges Hugo Chavez and his " 21st century Socialism".

      the thing that has kept Chavez in power are the high oil prices that created massive amounts of wealth for him, the Bolibugeosie and his social programs which are good ideas but in the way that they are managed is utter crap , but it pleases the popular sector which was basically neglected by the previous democratic governments. The problem is that the as the prices go down and the economic crisis sets in we begin to see the huge flaws of the government such as the failure of PDVSA once a world wide distinguished oil company is now worthless and with all of the invasions of farmlands and factories the country’s production rate has declined massively and has led to even more dependence on oil, exports and one of the worlds highest inflation rates as a Venezuelan I think we are moving closer to becoming a country like Zimbabwe

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
  • voxaustralis
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • voxaustralis:

      The worst is indicted by an rticle in Veneconomia titled "Venezuela in Recession". Links to the article are not good. But here is the article with links to the directory of articles: http://www.veneconomia.com/site/index.asp?idim=2&ids=6&sec=2#

      "Venezuela in Recession"

      This week, the Central Bank issued a report on the economy’s performance in the third quarter of the year, announcing that the balance of payments posted a surplus of $2.95 billion. This “positive” result has nothing to do with the strength of the external sector of the economy, but to irresponsible borrowing.
      As for the economy, the Central Bank reports that it is on the slippery slide with a contraction of 4.5% in the third quarter, confirming that the country has entered into a full-blown depression.
      The Central Bank’s report indicates that the non-oil economy experienced a contraction of 3%, 1.4 points more than in the previous quarter, attributable to the fact that the production of tradable goods fell by 8.2% and import duties shrank by 9.5%. This contraction is reflected in the most important areas of the economy, to whit: manufacturing, which plummeted by 9.2%, and mining, with a nosedive of 18.3%. The contraction was not bigger thanks to growth in communications (11.4%), construction (4.3%), and government services (2.3%).
      The oil economy shrank by 9.5%, due mainly to the fact that fewer barrels are being produced and that production costs are constantly rising. Unfortunately, instead of confronting this situation responsibly and proposing credible, sustainable policies to overcome the economic crisis, the Venezuelan Government is evading the issue.
      On the one hand, it is putting the blame on everyone and everything, except the communist path on which it has set the productive system, among them: a) the world crisis, even though President Chávez had sworn that Venezuela would not be affected by it; b) the private sector, which it has besieged with its anti-private enterprise policies; and c) the production cuts imposed by OPEC.
      On the other hand, as it did with the National Statistics Institute when it changed the method for calculating unemployment and inflation, now it is toying with the possibility of making “adjustments” in the measurements of Gross Domestic Product in order to adapt them to the socialist economy. According to Central Bank Director Bernardo Ferrán, production should be weighted on the basis of the employment it generates, not on its true contribution to the creation of value. Moments later, this criterion was tacitly endorsed by President Chávez at an event in the Teresa Carreño Theater, when he questioned the mechanisms for measuring GDP, since, as he understands it, “they obey capitalist logic and, therefore, are not appropriate for an economy that is moving towards socialism.”
      But no matter how hard the government tries, it will find it extremely difficult to cover up the economy’s red figures, as that is something the people feel in their empty pockets.
      And if the government continues implementing policies of state takeovers, imposing controls right and left, and legislating the private productive sector out of existence, the distortions that this generates will continue to thrive and intensify the economic crisis into which it has plunged Venezuela.

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • However, the more we attack this sovereign state the more we push them towards defense which emphasizes centralization. I say we let venezuelans experiment.

      Hopefully as we learn from different nations differing ideas we may move towards more liberating forms of organizing societies.

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • Their are different forms of socialism. Socialism means that the means of production are in the hands of the workers. One method is through state ownership (which at least allows some public say in the running of the institution provided the country is a functioning democracy). This method may be more efficient in areas that are more efficient centralized (for instance healthcare where socialized system are far cheaper and more effective).

      Another is through cooperatizing the workforce where the workers and not the state own the means of production. Venezueala is pushing this form of socialism.

      According to the Superintendence of Cooperatives (SUNACOOP), in Venezuela, there were 910 cooperatives nationwide in 1999, while by the end of 2007, that number had risen to 228,004. According to SUNACOOP, the cooperative sector in Venezuela now represents about 14% of Venezuela's GDP, and accounts for about 18% of employment in Venezuela. http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3670

      Venezuela unlike China or Cuba is democratic, and therefore allows for worker and not state control of the means of production.

      Though their are parallels with these countries their are also stark differences between them.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      Collective economic activity has already been tried in other countries, in which everyone, and consequently, no one owns the means of production. This deinsentivizes the worker from producing anything because in the end, none of it belongs to him...

      The worst examples of this occur in agriculture, and it is usully in this that these collective endeavors begin. Cuba used to harvest 30% of the world's sugar before collectivization destroyed the Cuban sugar industry. The Cuban sugar industry has been reduced to merely providing 10% of the world's sugar today...

      Collectivization in Russia and China also provide many more examples. The way that Russian agriculture was destroyed when Stalin collectivized the frms in Ukraine and imprisoned the wealth Kulak farmers, because they were "counterrevolutionary"...
      These utopian economic ideas have consistently led to the same result in the end, and the same will ring true for Venezuela.

    • 2 years ago
  • voxaustralis
    • 0
      voxaustralis  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      First of all 95% of the cooperatives are either broke or not working because they where created for no business reason. Second there is no planning only improvisation the cooperatives are given no management skills whatsoever thus leading to failure.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      @voxaustralia, that is precisely why instead of isolating Venezuela, the West should embrace the cooperatives by nourishing them with guidance, business advice, how to maximize production and returns. Having well run cooperative empower the people to generate revenue that then they are going to spend with the capitalists. It makes sense for capitalists to embrace unions and cooperatives, happy workers means good production and better returns in the long run.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      Well technically, Venezuela's government cannot play the embargo card that Cuba plays because the US policy towards Venezuela is not one of isolation, but rather one of ignoring Chavez and not engaging his rhetoric.

      It would be great for Western experts to be involved in these projects to guide them but there's just one small problem. Chavez doesn't want them there... And Western experts do not do things out of pure good will, they have to be offered these jobs... and Chavez has not invited any Western economic experts to oversee his economic policies; mostly because these experts criticize his policies.

      Unions are great too. They are present even in capitalist societies. But Venezuela's government is hostile toward unions because they cannot accept another actor also clims to work for the workers' interests besides themselves. Like in Cuba (where surprisingly unions or trade unions are illegal) unions are not necessary because according to the government, "The party is already looking out for the interests of the people"...

    • 2 years ago
  • voxaustralis
    • 0
      voxaustralis  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      @ Jubal I’m sorry to say this but once again you clearly don't understand what is going on in Venezuela, the only ones isolating Venezuela from the western world is the Venezuelan government they say the “empire” is out to get them, but if Venezuela is a real threat to the U.S. and the western world wouldn’t the United States haved taken military action a long time ago? Besides Chavez has a double standard his rhetoric is against the U.S. yet the U.S. Is his primary oil costumer and too add to this crazy double standard he sells the oil at a cheaper price! Yes I agree with you that cooperatives are good ideas but in order for a cooperative to thrive there needs to be proper management and a goal, something this regime refuses to do. The cooperatives that have worked in Venezuela were created by the previous governments before Chavez took office yet he takes credit for their success. You say that capitalist should embrace labor unions and they do and you fail to see that the cooperatives created by this Venezuelan government refuse recognize labor unions to a point were they arrest union leaders.

      there a many good examples of the failure of the Bolivarian cooperatives one of them is in the sugar industry in the Aragua state a few years ago Chavez decided to intervene the farmlands of Aragua that were producing sugarcane and instead of continuing to grow sugarcane a cash crop the government tries to grow something else, but the money for the process of clearing and replanting the land is taken by the cronies( for their personal expenses) that run the cooperatives and the land is left in a deplorable state ( I have seen the wasted farmland with my own eyes) instead of continuing to produce a cash crop they loose thousands of acres of land causing scarcity of the product in the supermarket, this forces the government to make one of those oil for food programs which are unjust and increase the price of the product.

      The other example is the company Venirauto a joint venture between Iran and Venezuela that will produce Iranian cars designed by the company Iran Khodro in Venezuela, these cars will be 50% cheaper than the imports and the other well known car companies, sounds good until he decide to force Iran Khodro into a collective contract which does not benefit the company at all, after this there were claims of explorative labor and safety concerns, but the “socialist” employer refuses to recognize trade and labor unions. Finally in order for the cars to sell you need to establish advertising, a dealer network and credit lines for costumer something this government refuses to do.

      Let me tell you something I am a socialist I believe in social democracies but with a strong private sector, I think and I am right to say that Hugo Chavez is an insult to the modern left.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
  • Zurama
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • The same way that Chavez says that he is taking the banks away from the rich and giving it to "the people", is just how Castro nationalized everything in Cuba, and also gave it to "the people"...

      I wonder how many of you that support Chavez in this would have also supported Castro when he did that. I think people need to realize that when Chavez says that it belongs to "the people" that what it really means is that it belongs to NO ONE.

      People are fooled by this because it appeals to their emotions, because it is easy to hate the rich. Nobody likes them and so no one will come to their defense. As Martin Neimoller said:

      "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
      Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
      Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
      Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."

      And before anyone starts pigeonholing me into a neoconservative corporate pawn, I just want to say that this does not mean that I blindly support the rich. Here in this country, I believe that there should be regulation so that the corporations and the rich do not exploit everyone else. However, nationalization as Chavez is doing is not the answer. The answer is to make them accountable through laws and regulation.

    • 2 years ago
  • tommic
    • 0
      tommic  

    • Well Said Jubal, Chavez believes in the people over profits, social justice from the United States that has abused South American countries for over a century on behalf of corporate profits. Delmonte, Chicita, Dupont and many others including every American Oil company have benifited from the United States interference with the CIA being heavily involved in the 1950's, 60's and 70's with the assasisination of Omar Torreos of Panama, the support for Allende and other dictators who did their bidding.

    • 2 years ago
  • 2hellnwait
    • 0
      2hellnwait  
    • tommic:

      People over profits? . . Yeah right. and just how is the wealth being allocated for the benefit of the people?

      Who besides the elitist within Chavez's sphere of influence are prospering?

      *fact: The average annual income for Venezuelans is $4,760. About 80% live below the poverty line.

      Explain, how are Venezuelans better off now than before Chavez?

    • 2 years ago
  • Jusoon
    • 0
      Jusoon  

    • Americans are taught that socialism is evil in the same way they are told that God exists....Listen, believe, don't question.
      Take a look at the conditions that the poor workers in many societies endure (the US inculded) and then take a look at how the rich live. If you can force yourself to think objectively you'll see that such an imbalance cannot last forever.

    • 2 years ago
  • revolutioninamerica
  • asherp
  • Zurama
    • 0
      Zurama  

    • There is nothing unusual about how Chavez turns on the people that supported him. Socialists are leaches, parasites if you wish, that use then discard the people when they no longer need the ones that helped them. There is precedent for this, just look at, Russia and the rest of the former communist countries. Castro in Cuba for example received help from the rich Cubans, while he was up in the Sierra Maestra mountain, but then turned on them and took their money, not to mention how many he killed.

      Chavez controls the media, the military and he can be president for life. Venezuelans are no longer free.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • 0
      RaceBannon  
    • Zurama:

      aside from the generalization, I like my socialism... en français: J'adore mon system.
      Trust me if someone tried to end this system in europe there'd be riots from the people..

    • 2 years ago
  • BKsaysAction
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • Zurama:

      Race, socialism in France is whole other thing from the type of thing you would find in Latin America. Furthermore, France is not a banana republic that is governed by mob rule, it is a procedural democracy governed by career polticians, not by the whims of the masses.

    • 2 years ago
  • voxaustralis
    • 0
      voxaustralis  
    • Zurama:

      Not all socialist are leeches that is a common stereotype that the media uses in the U.S. and the masses absorb. Socialism can be divided into many categories there is the modern avant garde social democratic left countries like Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Spain and France have these types of govt. that have social programs and a well developed private sector.

      Then there is the populist mob rule socialism that Mr. Chavez and the Castro brothers use which is basically trying to revive the old soviet red star and the romanticism of the communism of the 1960’s this type of socialist are indeed leeches with lack of substance ( there is no actual description of what 21st century socialism is) and is full of crap but fortunately it has failed to grab momentum in the world because it is exported to countries of no importance.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • Zurama:

      @Zurama, you are preaching to the choir. You should be directing your energy at the 60% of Venezuelan people who support Chavez, see if you can get them to rally around your view of them; those ignorant socialist leaches who live in poverty.

    • 2 years ago
  • Zurama
    • 0
      Zurama  
    • Zurama:

      Jubal, I am not interested in convincing anybody. I blog about communism, because I lived it. You will never be able to understand where I'm coming from, because you haven't been where I've been. If offended you......I apologize, but I have complete contempt for communism, socialism in any form.

      I help the Venezuelan resistance spread information about the human rights violations and murders that are going on there at the hands of Chavez mobs.

      The one's with Chavez will have to learn on their own when he betrays them all.

      I do think that it's not right for a small percentage of the worlds population to control the wealth and others to have nothing, but communism is not the answer. That is something that will have to be dealt with sooner or later.

    • 2 years ago
  • voxaustralis
    • 0
      voxaustralis  

    • What is really curious is that the owner of these banks is a Chavez supporter, he is part of a group of people that have pledged allegiance to the government and in exchange the government has provided the means of acquiring vast amounts of wealth this group is now the elite that governs Venezuela the Boliburgeosie, it is really unusual that Chavez takes action against its own people.

      the motto of this government is " Venezuela now belongs to everyone" but in reality it belongs to an elite as it was before Chavez was reelected the only difference is that this elite has a new name.

      There is only one word for this hypocrisy

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • voxaustralis:

      @voxaustralis, and you have statistics and data to support your conclusion? Perhaps you could name the people and the banks that are part of the new elite? Who exactly are the Bolibureosie?

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
  • voxaustralis
    • 0
      voxaustralis  
    • voxaustralis:

      one exaple of the Boliburgeois class is Jaqueline Faria before chavez assigned her as distric capital governor( a position that is meant to take power away from the current mayor of caracas Antonio Ledezma a member of the oppositon) she was the CEO of CANTV and MOVILNET the venezuelan state phone and cell phone companies

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • Image

    • Anarcho Syndicalism is the best government for the entire world. There is something entirely wrong that we have 5% of the population of the world controlling 95% of the worlds wealth and natural resources. There is a reason why so many people are living in poverty. It is thanks to unregulated Capitalism.

      Just look at some of the facts on poverty in the world. Most people in the world live on less than $2.50 per day.

      http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

      By next year there will be 20 Million orphans due to the Aids Epidemic there. Poverty and starvation are commonplace in Africa and many parts of Central and Southern Americas.

      The fact that poverty in Venezuela was reduced by 72% is quite significant and Chavez should be praised for what he has accomplished there to help the poor. And extending healthcare and education should get those people more up to speed so they can "make decisions that will affect their nation."

      How convenient to call the poor people of Venezuela an uneducated Mob Rule. This is so elitist to make such comments. Are only the rich qualified to rule the rest of us?

      I can't believe the bullshit I am reading on this thread about the political qualifications of people because of their economic status.

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
  • 2hellnwait
    • 0
      2hellnwait  
    • jubal:

      Union and Syndicate managed government?

      The success of anarcho syndicalism really depends on a fundamental change in the nature of man, both in his motivation, his altruism, and also in his knowledge and sophistication. . . so
      . . . successful examples of a Libertarian Socialist (aka anarcho syndicalism) utopias are found where?

      Can it be assumed that you're a IWA advocate?

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • jubal
  • Zurama
    • 0
      Zurama  

    • I can't find the message now, but to whoever said something about the US making Chavez appear dumb, it just plain funny! Chavez uneducated, unsophisticated, gorilla image is as real as it gets. If he seems dumb is because he is, but he is smart enough to do for himself. Soon he will be the only one with money in Venezuela, just like the Castro's did in Cuba.

    • 2 years ago
  • BKsaysAction
    • 0
      BKsaysAction  

    • I can't believe people still support this guy when he's clearly taking full control of the country and taking away rights and freedoms. You know when he does take over the banks his government is going to take all the money and give out rations to everyone. But people on here will give excuses on how he is a hero just like when he shut down the private media and people will probably give more. I believe in strong federal regulations but when the government seizes the bank I use and takes all my money thats stealing.

    • 2 years ago
  • Zurama
    • 0
      Zurama  

    • There is no difference between Chavez, Castro and Mao! They all have killed and Chavez is still killing as is Castro! peterzlstramoore.....Where have you been? Under a rock?

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • peterzylstramoore
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      say WHAT? peter, Chavez DOES support Mao. He has bragged about how he has studied his book and applies "his lessons" to "la Revolucion Bonita"...AND Kim Jung Il. He is also an ardent supporter of Qadafi, Ahmedinijad, and Robert Mugabe.

      it's clear you only know about him what you've read in Granma or The Nation...and they, of course, don't reveal the depths of his insanity.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • 0
      RaceBannon  

    • the irony is everyone is kind of right. Yes Chavez is taking democracy to mob rule to consolidate his power, but keep in mind Chavez is a symptom of American/british foreign policy. We make the Chavezs, the ayatollahs, the shahs, the saudis what they are, we send our spies to screw their economy, we broker slave loans between corrupt governments and american companies. So don't be surprised when the next coup happens and a totalitarian ideologue government comes in to bring the "revolution", because we were the ones who created the inequality in the first place (actually I think the CIA calls it blow-back). It only makes some senses that the revolutionaries for the most part have ridden anti-western, capitalist waves because they saw what the capitalist did when they were allowed to do business, Castro is not an accident either he's just trying to keep cuba out of american hands. In his eyes its better to live in cuban communism that have have the people work a dollar an hour working for hanes in name of progress.

      So the american government has no place in declaring that they know freedom, because all they seem to do is create chaos in other peoples countries to make money or better yet cheap labor. Our sudden relationship with communist China should've made people think twice, especially those who fear america is becoming anything remotely "socialist".

      Personally I think this is evidence that no system of government we have created so far works, and thats not good enough for humanity anymore.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • RaceBannon:

      Race, why is it that Libs just can't see a problem in the world for which the USA is NOT the cause?

      What do you know about Venezuelan history that informs you that "chavez is a product of US policy?"

      The Venezuelans ran their own country quite well for hundreds of years, from the days of Simon Bolivar and have never been "victimized" by the USA. What's more, unlike other poor, undeveloped Latin American nations, their vast oil wealth has given them far more independence and power than other nations. Many, if not most, of their social issues are NOT the result of US policy, but rather an ironic result of having so much petroleum.

      It was a Venezuelan, Perez Alfonso who coined the great phrase “The Devil's Excrement” (El excremento del diablo) to describe petroleum due to the unexpected and negative impacts it can have on a society. It provided quick and easy wealth to some, lured in millions of other from foreign countries looking to cash in on the wealth, convinced the people that it was "raining petroleum" and everyone should have a piece of the pie, and created a socialist mentality among the Venezuelans that the government should be a giant nanny giving money away.

      I get irritated when I hear people espouse the opinion that every time a nation like Venezuela is in trouble, well we Americans or Brits must be to blame. It's a bunch of commuist bullshit. You may as well blame "the Jews". Hey, Chavez does.

    • 2 years ago
  • Zurama
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • Zurama:

      and you know, of course, that Chavez brags to be a big fan of Mao also? he bragged many times how he has read Mao's books and even said "that is a model of government to learn from".

      and then along come folks like Peter to drool about Chavez's genius, right before the killing begins.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • Zurama:

      @curtisreed, you claim to know so much because you have a wife from there and you lived there, but in another post you alluded to being some kind of expert in international affairs or something like that.

      Besides Veneconomics website, how do you know that what you are repeating isn't propaganda?

    • 2 years ago
  • larrysnotes
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • Urban gypsy suggests:

      Because it is irresponsible to ask the unschooled masses, who do not have any understanding of economics to make a decision that affects the entire country. That is best left to experts on economics and not to the vote of the masses...

      Again make it clear why you hate Chavez. Because his policies are responsive to the poor majority.

      And you call him a dictator.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • Zurama
  • UrbanGypsy
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      peter, you are on a fool's erand if you think that economies should or could be run by populist demand. why not just throw open the banks and let the masses loot them? that would be very popular? What do you think would happen to the economy?

      Your kind of thinking is what created the mess in Zimbabwe. Your mindset is that of the Mugabes of the world. And in the end, after people like you have their way, the UN generally shows up with food and water to stop the famine.

    • 2 years ago
  • ibrake4rappers13
  • shanklinmike
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • @ peterzylstramoore

      I only stated the truth. I did not say that he should be assassinated, only that it is the only way he will leave politics. I will stand by that prediction that unless he dies or is assassinated that he will be there forever. And no, I'm fine with the Venezuelan people electing their leader freely. But by throwing away term limits the Venezuelan people destroyed democracy and turned it into mob rule.

      Now what is there to curb a dictatorship by the majority? Nothing. I want to see what you would have said if Bush was allowed to be elected indefinetely. Even if a leader cheats in elections term limits limit the amount of damage a leader can do to a country.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • UrbanGypsy:

      We have a dictatorship by majority in this country now, what so different from Venezuela today?

      We got a taste of Mob Rule when Bush was in office, and the same Mob is threatening to do it again. Kill Obama is the cry from their ranks as they troll for assassins to do their dirty work. These are the same bunch of people who also support the death penalty for Gays in Uganda.

      If you think America isn't already under a shadow government, then you are so sadly delusional.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • UrbanGypsy:

      We don't have mob rule here when it comes to presidential elections. Term limits limit the power of of one man from becoming leader for too long.

      If anything is considered mob rule here its the way that people in certain states have voted by referendum to take away gay rights. Or even how some Congressmen have unlimited term limits. We've all seen those people who have been elected for 40 plus years in the Congress.

      I believe that there are certain things that should not be put up to a vote by referendum, yet Chavez thinks everything can. And what worries me is that he is using his time in office to hoard power by changing the constitution. I cannot tell you how many Venezuelans have already left the country for Miami, many of them my friends...

      Everyone has their opnions of whether he is right or wrong. Only time will tell...

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • Urban Gypsy on controlling the banks....

      Of course he will. He has complete control of the National Assembly and the opposition is divided. Nothing short of assassination will stop that man from ruling until his death...

      Venezuela was lost the day the people voted to allow Chavez to run for unlimited term limits.

      URBAN GYPSY AS A GOOD AMERICAN SUGGESTS WE SHOULD DISREGARD THE PEOPLES VOTE TO ALLOW CHAVEZ TO RUN IN REPEATED ELECTIONS.

      HE SUGGESTS WE SHOULD RESPOND TO THE PEOPLES CONTINUED ELECTION OF CHAVEZ BY ASSASSINATING HIM.

      MAYBE WE SHOULD ALLOW VENEZUELANS TO CHOOSE THEIR LEADER.

      ISN'T THAT WHAT A DEMOCRACY IS??

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      I already responded to you in the first comment. But since you have littered the page in a clear ttempt to discredit me me I will respond here too so as not to seem as if though I am dodging the question.

      I only stated the truth. I did not say that he should be assassinated, only that it is the only way he will leave politics. And no, I'm fine with the Venezuelan people electing their leader freely. But by throwing away term limits the Venezuelan people destroyed democracy and turned it into mob rule.

      Now what is there to curb a dictatorship by the majority? Nothing. I want to see what you would have said if Bush was allowed to be elected indefinetely. Even if a leader cheats in elections term limits limit the amount of damage a leader can do to a country.

      Chavez repeatedly has intimidated and even imprisoned some of his political enemies, how is that exactly supposed to effectuate any change against him? You assume that elections in Venezuela are transparent...

      Chavez controls most of the media and he has all the mediums of communication. Expecting him to leave through election is not so simple.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • curtisreed
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • The US did try to set up a puppet government back in 2001.

      From Mark Weisbrot
      (http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/venezuelas-election-provides-opportunity-for-washington-to-change-course/#U.S.%20Support%20for%20the%20Coup)

      First, according to the U.S. State Department's Office of Inspector General,

      "it is clear that NED [the National Endowment for Democracy], Department of Defense (DOD), and other U.S. assistance programs provided training, institution building, and other support to individuals and organizations understood to be actively involved in the brief ouster of the Chavez government." [1]

      Second, and even more importantly, the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of the coup but then denied that knowledge when it occurred, claiming that it was not a coup at all, in an attempt to make it succeed. This is a form of involvement. To take an analogy: imagine that someone tells me that they are going to kill someone, and then does so. He then claims self-defense. If I then go to the police, with full knowledge that the crime was planned, and say that it was self-defense, I am participating in the crime. In that sense, then, Washington was involved in the coup.

      During the April 16, 2002 White House press briefing, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated that the U.S. government had no prior knowledge of a pending coup in Venezuela: "events were combustible, events were fluid. Those events were not anticipated."[2]

      However, an April 6, 2002 CIA Senior Intelligence Brief (several days before the coup) states that "[d]issident military factions, including some disgruntled senior officers and a group of radical junior officers, are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President Chavez, possibly as early as this month To provoke military action, plotters may try to exploit unrest stemming from opposition demonstrations slated for later this month or ongoing strikes at the state-owned oil company PDVSA." [3] Intelligence briefs such as this one are typically read by as many as 200 officials in the Bush Administration.
      Earlier, a March 11, 2002 CIA Senior Intelligence Brief had warned: "If the situation further deteriorates and demonstrations become more violent or if Chavez attempts an unconstitutional move to add to his powers, the military may move to overthrow him."[4]
      It is thus clear that U.S. officials were briefed at the highest level about an anticipated and likely military coup against the Chavez government. Yet when the coup occurred, White House and State Department officials attempted to convince the public that it was not a coup but rather a popular uprising. (See below).
      Third, the White House supported the coup government in other ways:

      White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer said on April 12, one day after the attempted coup:
      We know that the action encouraged by the Chavez government provoked this crisis. According to the best information available, the Chavez government suppressed peaceful demonstrations. The results of these events are now that President Chavez has resigned the presidency. Before resigning, he dismissed the vice president and the cabinet, and a transitional civilian government has been installed. [5]

      The U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesman Philip Reeker followed the White House line stating that “undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez administration provoked yesterday’s crisis in Venezuela.”[6]
      Jorge Castaneda, former Foreign Minister of Mexico stated that “Effectively, there was a proposition made by the United States and Spain, to issue a declaration with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and France recognizing the government of [coup leader] Pedro Carmona. [7]

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      horse hockey, AGAIN.

      The NED [the National Endowment for Democracy] ALWAYS provides training and help to democratic groups and in fact also provided funding and training to Chavista Some of the "individuals" you mention that received training were labor union leaders, members of the chamber of commerce, etc. The training was on organization and democratic processes, not coups.

      "Second, and even more importantly, the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of the coup but then denied that knowledge when it occurred, claiming that it was not a coup at all, in an attempt to make it succeed. This is a form of involvement. "
      What bull. The State Dept warned Chavez that there were indications that some groups might try to overthrow the governmtn. Bush "denied that knowledge" when asked if they knew of a specific coup lot. Because they DIDN'T. The society in gneral went on strike to force the regime to change some of its policies, and when Chavez ordered Plan Avila to be activated, his generals rebelled because it was an unconsitutional order that would have resulted in a Tienamen Square-like massacre against unarmed protesters.

      In this sense, who was right? If the president oversteps his powers and gives illegal and unconstitutional orders, they are BOUND by the constitution to disobey them.

      In that case, I think the case can be made that it is NOT a coup if it occurs within constitutionality and legality. This was also the case in Honduras, but the left has again re-written history to defend their beloved communist dictators.

    • 2 years ago
  • JasperGrinsdale
    • 0
      JasperGrinsdale  

    • Uh oh! Chavez is nationalizing banks. America better go in to Venezuela, rape & pillage the country, and set up a puppet gov't like the rest of Central America.

    • 2 years ago
  • CarolineS
    • 0
      CarolineS  
    • JasperGrinsdale:

      He probably is their puppet, I am sure there is more to this, maybe they are playing a different tactic, US doesn't want to be known as the big bully now, so maybe they've gone a different way to confuse people
      whatever happens, will be for the benefit of the elite. never the people.

      liked your post tho!

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • You are alright, we have no reason to criticize the banking sectors despite their roll in the recent economic crisis, despite the fact that they'ved turned government bailouts into record bonusses.

      Chavez is the idiot for challenging the banking sector, and we should all roll on with our-unregulated, tax-payer subsidized banking sector.

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • Chavez continues to get elected by about 60% of the population, and his referendum's get supported by the same 60% (nearly all of them poor).

      WHY DON'T WE ALLOW POOR VENEZUELANS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE NATIONALIZATION IS A BAD THING?

      MAYBE THEY HAVE REASON TO LIKE CHAVEZ?
      * During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and does take into account increased access to health care or education.
      * Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.
      * Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.
      * Real (inflationadjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      Because it is irresponsible to ask the unschooled masses, who do not have any understanding of economics to make a decision that affects the entire country. That is best left to experts on economics and not to the vote of the masses...

      The fact that you are even asking this question betrays your lack of understanding of what a procedural democracy should be run like. Your idea of democracy is closer to a Banana republic cheap populism...

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      jubal, what makes you think those are "FACTS" and not just propaganda?

      I've spent a lot of time there, I have relatives there, and let me tell you, if those stats you mention were real, the situation in the country would look very different than it is.

      Can you tell me how you cut poverty in half in just a few years? Really?! How is that done at the same time you implement policies that shut down tens of thousands of businesses and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs?

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      by the way, peter, reports of wide-spread electoral fraud have put many of those elections in question, even various Chavista groups complained about the fraud. I personally witnessed at least one referendum and if the things I witnessed there happened here, there would probably be an armed uprising.
      oh, and he has NOT won all of the referenda. He lost the one on perpetual re-election. Another he won BARELY. And he lost control of a number of key states, so he single-handedly decided to alter the political structure to centralize power away from the regional/state powers, in violation of the constitution, but HEY, who cares, right?

      a dictator who says he's consolidating power "for the poor"...that couldn't be a bad thing, right?

      "What luck for the rulers that men don`t think."--Adolf Hitler

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  

    • JUST ANOTHER POWER GRAB EH (THAT DOESN'T HELP THE POOR). WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT THE NUMBERS????? INSTEAD OF TALKING OUT OF OUR ASSES.
      http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf

      * During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and does take into account increased access to health care or education.
      * Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.
      * Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.
      * Real (inflationadjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.

      IT MIGHT ALSO BE IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER HOW ROOSEVELT WAS DESCRIBED (AND THAT KRUGMAN, AND DEAN BAKER, JOSEPH STIGLITZ, ETC HAD ALL CALLED FOR THE NATIONALIZATION OF FAILING BANKS IN THE US).

      * The current economic expansion began when the government got control over the national oil company in the first quarter of 2003. Since then, real (inflationadjusted) GDP has nearly doubled, growing by 94.7 percent in 5.25 years, or 13.5 percent annually.
      * Most of this growth has been in the nonoil sector of the economy, and the private sector has grown faster than the public sector.

      * From 1998-2006, infant mortality has fallen by more than onethird. The number of primary care physicians in the public sector increased 12fold from 1999-2007, providing health care to millions of Venezuelans who previously did not have access.
      * There have been substantial gains in education, especially higher education, where gross enrollment rates more than doubled from 1999/2000 to 2007/2008.
      * The labor market also improved substantially over the last decade, with unemployment dropping from 11.3 percent to 7.8 percent. During the current expansion it has fallen by more than half. Other labor market indicators also show substantial gains.
      * Over the past decade, the number of social security beneficiaries has more than doubled.
      * Over the decade, the government's total public debt has fallen from 30.7 to 14.3 percent of GDP. The foreign public debt has fallen even more, from 25.6 to 9.8 percent of GDP.
      * Inflation is about where it was 10 years ago, ending the year at 31.4 percent. However it has been falling over the last half year (as measured by threemonth averages) and is likely to continue declining this year in the face of strong deflationary pressures worldwide.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • peterzylstramoore:

      that's a very misleading report.
      "There are different ways to evaluate the growth performance of the Venezuelan economy during the Chávez years. One is to simply look at GDP growth since Chávez became president in the first quarter of 1999. The latest (seasonally-adjusted) data available are for the second quarter of 2008. On that basis, the economy has grown 47.4 percent, or 4.3 percent annually over 9.25 years."

      This reveals that the "report" is very biased and does not look at real factors.

      The vast majority of the GDP in Venezuela comes from petroleum. The price per barrel of oil skyrocketed from 1998 to 2008, making the GDP increase but NOT due tChavez policies:

      1998 $11.91 $15.77
      1999 $16.56 $21.39
      2000 $27.39 $34.29
      2001 $23.00 $28.03
      2002 $22.81 $27.33
      2003 $27.69 $32.47
      2004 $37.66 $42.97
      2005 $50.04 $55.21
      2006 $58.30 $62.36
      2007 $64.20 $66.66
      2008 $91.48 $91.35

      Venezuela, under Chavez, has seen shortages in food, fuel, and energy, as well as water. Despite all the glowing reports on Mission Barrio Adentro, which provided Cuban doctors for the poor, there were chronic shortages of medicines, hospitals are in crisis, it's not a rosey picture at all. For the first time in memory, there are lines to get milk and meat, due to shortages. In fact, Chavez has had to import meat and other staples because his policies DESTROYED the domestic producers.

    • 2 years ago
  • CarolineS
    • 0
      CarolineS  

    • at the end of the day, it seems poor people will never win, no matter what country you're in, whether your under democracy, socialism, communism, these are all different words for dictatorships, unless you've got billions, then you dont have a say what goes on and are forced to slowly watch the world errode infront of your eyes, leaving a mess of an earth for your grandchildren.

    • 2 years ago
  • peterzylstramoore
    • 0
      peterzylstramoore  
    • Image
    • CarolineS:

      Chavez continues to get elected by about 60% of the population, and his referendum's get supported by the same 60% (nearly all of them poor).

      WHY DON'T WE ALLOW POOR VENEZUELANS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE NATIONALIZATION IS A BAD THING?

      MAYBE THEY HAVE REASON TO LIKE CHAVEZ?
      * During the current economic expansion, the poverty rate has been cut by more than half, from 54 percent of households in the first half of 2003 to 26 percent at the end of 2008. Extreme poverty has fallen even more, by 72 percent. These poverty rates measure only cash income, and does take into account increased access to health care or education.
      * Over the entire decade, the percentage of households in poverty has been reduced by 39 percent, and extreme poverty by more than half.
      * Inequality, as measured by the Gini index, has also fallen substantially. The index has fallen to 41 in 2008, from 48.1 in 2003 and 47 in 1999. This represents a large reduction in inequality.
      * Real (inflationadjusted) social spending per person more than tripled from 1998-2006.

      http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2009-02.pdf

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • CarolineS:

      Caroline, have you had your house shot up because you voted against a sitting president?
      Have you experienced armed thugs in the voting line with guns and knives telling you to vote for X instead of Y?
      Have you had a family member disappear because they organized against the current administration?

      Don't talk as if you live in a dictatorship unless you actually DO.

      We in the USA are still free to say OBAMA (OR BUSH) SUCKS without fearing for our lives.

      It reveals an astounding ignorance to make comparisons between a free capitalist democracy and communism.

    • 2 years ago
  • CarolineS
    • 0
      CarolineS  
    • CarolineS:

      curtis reed, you dont know me ok, dont ever call me ignorant, i'm the least ignorant person I know!
      if you would have read my post properly this is what I said "whether your under democracy, socialism, communism, these are all different words for dictatorships"
      We are all ruled over with no choice, however in the west we think we have choice because we can vote for one or the other parties who say different things but behind it all are the same. There are obviously different forms of dictatorships, as i DO believe we live in one now, but there are different forms of dictatorship, ours is a hidden, and yeah lucky us we can say obama/bush/brown sucks, but if you are aware of the growing database of information on what people say and do that the governments are secretly building, then you would not be spouting of your own ridiculous ignorant crap such as "We in the USA are still free to say OBAMA (OR BUSH) SUCKS without fearing for our lives" you're obviously unaware of the patriot act??? and also my personal favourite in your post was "It reveals an astounding ignorance to make comparisons between a free capitalist democracy and communism" pot calling kettle black??
      get to know a bit more about your own country please before speaking to me again! i was not aiming my post at anyone, I just wanted to point out that in a capitalist society, we will never be free, there is only elite rich, and poor.

      and peterzylstramoore, many thanks for the facts and figures, I wasn't saying chavez was bad, or hadn't helped the people of his country, but when certain people control a nations debt, they will never be free, even if jesus was their president, there's no way he could get them out of the real problems they are in.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • CarolineS:

      Caroline, I don't have to "know you" to comment that your post was ignorant. Your follow up was also. You obviously have NO real idea what it is like to live under a true dictatorship, and your absurd attempt to equate the USA with a "Patriot Act" to a true dictatorship is laughable. Are there increased intrusions into our privacy? Sure. But as bad as they may be, the distance between our current system and a dictatorship is still very great. Only the truly naive could sit at home browsing freely on her computer and weep tears onto her veggie burger about living in a "dictatorship".

      BTW, when you say that you are "the least ignorant person you know", that kind of means you are the most knowledgable person you know. Are you really?

      If you're really making that statement, I'd recommend you get out more and try to meet some new and intelligent people. I'm proud to be able to humbly say I know quite a few peope whose intelligence and knowledge is greater than mine. I try to cultivate friendships with people from whom I can constantly learn. It kind of seems to me that any person who thinks he or she knows more than anyone they know, probably doesn't know enough to know how poorly informed they are about the world.

      Just sayin.

    • 2 years ago
  • willys50
  • neocongo
    • 0
      neocongo  

    • What a blatant power grab under the guise of helping the poor. Banks don't make loans to the poor because, surprise surprise, the poor are unable to pay it back with reasonable interest. If Chavez were truly interested in helping the poor, he would be creating conditions favorable to creating both public and private sector jobs for the poor. Instead, he talks of helping the poor while in fact what he is doing is consolidating his totalitarian grasp on Venezuela. And mush headed Americans think this is a great thing.

    • 2 years ago
  • kivol
    • 0
      kivol  
    • neocongo:

      Are the banks being reasonable? Is Chavez making these banks take on risks they shouldn't be? The last question is why are the poor unable to pay back their loans? Oh wait, is that because there is a common belief that these people are lazy and irresponsible? Just curious.
      I also wonder how much of an effect we(the american economy) had on their economy/society when our banks destroyed our current system. Not the poor.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • neocongo:

      Chavez wants the banks to make low interest loans to the poor. Just like JFK wanted before he was assassinated.

      Remember, JFK wanted to give first time home buyers government guaranteed loans at around 2 or 3 % so that more people could buy and own homes or get low interest government guaranteed loans for small business. JFK wanted to take America back on the gold and silver standards and put the FED out of business.

      He was hated by International Bankers for his stand on loaning money to people at tremendously reduced interest rates, and he was assassinated.

      Why do you suppose there is such a push to get rid of Chavez? Could his image in the United States be distorted to support the political ideologies of the Banking Cartels?

      I think there is a correlation here that should be looked at with an open mind.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • neocongo:

      OMG! I actually agree with something neocongo has said. Holy shit. I think I need to go to confession and get my sins absolved.

      @Kivol and Jubal:
      You obviously know NOTHING about Venezuelan politics, history or the society. In fact, low-rate loans have already been involved, but the level of failure to repay is astronomical. The legal system is in ruins, there is no way to find debtors who want unsecured loans, and programs run by the government have been abject failures because they never repay the debts.

      You think this sounds like a great idea because you are not living through the crisis. But if a President here forced the bank where you have your money to GIVE that money to someone else without any ability to get it back, I would assume you would be smart enough to realize you'd NEVER see it again.

      Chavez already uses the national banks as his own cash box, illegally removing money to use as he wants without oversight. Nationalize the banks and every bank and every bank account is put at great risk.

    • 2 years ago
  • 2hellnwait
  • Ihatethemall
    • 0
      Ihatethemall  
    • neocongo:

      Shit neo, add me to the list of folks who never agree with you normally but this time we have to say you are right on this time.

      The end of the world is upon us. we agreed with Neocongo

    • 2 years ago
  • Zurama
    • 0
      Zurama  

    • He is going to succeed! I think it's to late to stop him and it brakes my heart to see the sacrifices the opposition is making.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  
    • Zurama:

      Of course he will. He has complete control of the National Assembly and the opposition is divided. Nothing short of assassination will stop that man from ruling until his death...

      Venezuela was lost the day the people voted to allow Chavez to run for unlimited term limits.

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
  • Brazil617MA
12
1 - 100 of 118
more from Community:
from the community

top videos