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

  • Zurama
  • curtisreed
  • asherp
  • flyingkick
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • asherp:

      Banks should not be about enriching a small group of people, the money it collects in deposits should be used to build communities and create opportunities for people to move up from their poverty. I agree with Chavez 100% on this issue.

      The article is incredibly biased against Chavez.

      Why is it convenient for some people to hate the MSM when it comes to American politics, but they absolutely think that the MSM's portrayal of foreign politics to be spot on?

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

      Jubal Chavez is a dictator, who is systematically killing his opposition, taking over private enterprise, the media and now the banks. Nothing good is coming out of this.

      Only a communist would see any good in this. I don't think you are communist, are you?

    • 2 years ago
  • asherp
    • 0
      asherp  
    • asherp:

      Most of what we hear about Hugo Chavez is bullshit.

      LIke for instance-- the coup that put him out of power? Staged by the CIA, made to look as if it was by "the people."

      The nation's robber barons were "protesting" in favor of the coup, and CIA operatives shot some of them to make it look like his supporters were violent against the robber barons.

      He was put back into power by the people-- the corrupt government there, run by wealthy elites, could not stand the power of a shitload of poor people saying, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH."

      Hugo Chavez has simply ridden that wave of support. He is indigenous, he is socialist, and he is redistributing wealth.

      For too long, the wealthy elites have run EVERYTHING. They have run roughshod over the poor of that nation, and it's about time somebody took from those who have too much, and gave to those who barely have enough to get by.

      Does that make me a socialist? (It does. I'm totally a goddamn socialist, and proud to say so. I'm also an Eagle Scout and an American patriot.)

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

      Ha,ha,ha!!! I'm sorry hadn't read so much bull in a while. That freaking gorilla is pocketing Venezuela's money.

      You book communist are all so amusing!! lol

    • 2 years ago
  • asherp
  • jubal
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • Image
    • asherp:

      Asherp, your statements are absolutely horse hockey. I'm married to a Venezuelan, I've spent MUCH time there, I was even an elections observer during the Presidential Recall Referendum and saw the fraud, violence, terrorism and intimidation first hand.
      You can read the detail of my report to Senator Bill Nelson here:
      http://vcrisis.com/rreport.pdf

      "Here is just a short excerpt of what we witnessed:
      The government ordered the police to remain in their barracks, leaving the people unprotected. In the opposition areas, the Chavistas operated with impunity, riding around threatening the people with arms, and in some cases firing on them. Meanwhile, in the "popular" sectors of town, the police were out of their barracks, apparently to help the government control the vote.
      • We were threatened on several occasions, at least once with pistols concealed under the shirts of Chavistas who yelled threats and showed us their weapons.
      • When we went into the 23 de Enero barrio, Chavistas working in the voting area turned into rabble-rousers and tried to stir the crowd into attacking us. The Plan República troops did nothing to stop them, and when our safety was in question, they escorted us out. We could no longer observe the many irregularities in the area.
      Page 1 of 8
      • We videotaped the damages to the home of the Primero Justicia coordinator, whose house was machine-gunned at around 3:00 AM of the morning of the Referendum. We witnessed that the government summarily fired thousands of poll workers previously accredited by the CNE, simply because they had signed the referendum against the president. In their place, the CNE actively hired pro-government workers that they called directly (in violation of the CNE's own election norms that stated that they had to be selected by "sorteo" or random drawing), and they brought in workers from other districts to work in the mostly opposition areas, and other clear violation of the norms.
      • We saw that the Comando Maisanta had obtained illegal “Security” badges and had illegally set up cordons and were blocking the entrance to the voting centers to members of the opposition (in the mostly Chavista centers, such as Catia).
      Opposition witnesses and table members were physically removed from voting centers or blocked from entering and guaranteeing transparency."

      We were witness to MANY coordinated attacks on innocents, including the murder of a female protestor who was shot by Chavistas in cold blood. She died in the park where she was shot. the perpetrator who killed her was videotaped and was later photographed acting as a body guard for a top-level Chavista official.

      Opposition members have been gunned down in broad daylight with witnesses who claim that they were executed and put up NO resistance, while the "offical report" is that they were armed and fired at the political police.

      Meanwhile, your story about the CIA "involvement" in the "coup" is HORSE SHIT. There is NO credible evidence ANYWHERE showing any involvement. The key "evidence" used was a memo that was shared with the Chavez govt. stating that US intelligence believed that there was the possibility of a coup attempt--they were WARNING Chavez, but he and his lackeys (including you) used that to pretend that the US had "staged" a coup.

      You have dismissed thousands of stories by first-hand witnesses and instead accepted a socialist propaganda film as "fact".

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
    • 0
      RaceBannon  
    • asherp:

      ahserp,

      I could hug you thanks for posting that video. I showed it to my colleagues, but they're all french so after it ended they shrugged and told me "we know this already". Whatever any excuse to waste an hour is fine by us.

      curtis

      did you see when the cia agent practically admitted being involved in south american politics just before coldly acknowledging that the US was going to protect its "interest". Many former card carrying (no such thing per se, but you know what i mean) cia agents have admitted to facilitating those who are so nicely referred as "economic hit-men". For any american to go on about how we're freeing countries should be careful, I could tell you few stories about my visit to Haiti and all the good things the american government did there, but you'd probably tell me I'm full of it so I'll spare you the history lesson.

      Another point you come from the "Free Venezuela" company.... sounds like a think tank to me, but I could be wrong. Still though america has no room to talk about freedom, based on its history it lost that privilege ages ago. This leads me to a joke my teacher told me when I was kid in france, if i recall it went like this : "if an american says they're going to free you, run because he'll shove a coke in your mouth and tell everyone he gave you democracy". Actually I think its a more common joke, I remember hearing a character in a Goddard movie say something similar.

    • 2 years ago
  • UrbanGypsy
    • 0
      UrbanGypsy  

    • Chavez' reasons for nationalizing these banks is because they deposited resources into the hands of private banks. It seems almost too easy, and it provides him with just another excuse to nationalize more of the banking industry. Chavez is slowly eroding any challenges to his power in the country and it is slipping into something that looks more and more like Cuba.

      There have been many worrying developments since Chavez entrenched himself in power. Venezuela, a country that exports oil has been experiencing energy shortages and the Guri Dam that supplies most of the country with hydroelectric power is falling into serious disrepair.

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

      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  
    • UrbanGypsy:

      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.

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

      What would stop him is the same thing that stops other leaders in democracies without presidential terms. Failed policies. Many other countries have no term limits (almost half the countries in Europe, Canada, etc). It is only when we disagree with someone's policies that we call the write to run in elections indefinately dictatorships. I would have no problem if Bush would have run again.

      The difference of course between Bush and Chavez is that if Bush would have run again he would have lost in a landslide. Chavez will continue to run, until he loses favor with the populace (as is the case for many elected representatives even in the US). Again you don't call them dictators b/c you are not ideologically opposed to them.

      Venezuela has it's problems and you can spend all your time focusing on them. His policies may in the end fail. However, they should be alowed to experiment with policies that differ from us and even our corporate interests, as a sovereign country. And they should be criticized in balanced ways (similar to how we would criticize ourselves).

      And so inflation should be compared to governments surrounding Chavez with similar policies. Inequality, growth, etc should be compared to prior governments.

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

      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
  • 2hellnwait
    • 0
      2hellnwait  
    • UrbanGypsy:

      Yes, to expect that a despot such as Chavez to leave through elections is a sane as expecting the sun to rise from the West - because those supposed "free elections" are rigged through intimidation and fear. . . get a grip, eh?

    • 2 years ago
12
101 - 118 of 118
more from Community:
from the community

top videos