I’m not sure what the point is here.
The Irish government took over a number of banks, as did various other “western” governments, theoretically to ensure that the banking system continued to function.
Most of those banks are still with us, but just how well they are fulfilling their functions, I am not sure.
Hopefully the toilet-paper producer in Venezuela will do better in State ownership than our banks have.
Have a read on how Chile’s economy was manipulated prior to the murder of Allende and Pinochet taking over the country.
It might help you to understand why Venezuela is more proactive and will not allow the patronato to challenge the government’s authority.
Ya mean like Ireland under Bertie…?
Venezuela orders temporary takeover of toilet paper factory -> ca.news.yahoo.com/venezuela-orde … 37055.html
‘Get a boat!’ Venezuela flights booked full for months - -> ca.news.yahoo.com/boat-venezuela … 50761.html
might be an idea to change the thread title
Obviously those who castigate Chavez’s legacy would prefer that rather than redistribute wealth and seek to educate his people, he had instead run a tighter ship in terms of his treatment of the lower orders a la other oil-producing countries…these lads for example…
…and resultantly maintained the ‘natural order’ of things…
I wonder will some of our more vociferous critics of the Bolivarian revolution find themselves travelling to Qatar to watch a world cup…to be built on the back of an oil boom itself built on the blood of thousands of slaves from the Indian subcontinent and surrounding south Asian region…
Personally, Id be of the view that a Government or society which seeks to nationalise a toilet roll factory on behalf of its citizenry, whether misguided or not dependng on your perspective, is eminently preferable to one which bases its economy on the misery of what it views as being sub-human human beings…
Yet rarely a whisper and certainly no overt criticism of such societies economic policies around these parts while Chavez et al kop constant criticism…funny that…
Caught that before you edited it
The main thrust of the argument against Chavez during the course of this thread, to include your own, has been that he ‘squandered an oil boom’. In other words, that his economic policy was misguided to the point of being idiotic.
In this regard, referencing of the economic policies of other oil-producing economies ie those who presumably, have not ‘squandered an oil boom’, to include the likes of Qatar is quite relevant…and in my view places much of the criticism in a more realistic context.
In essence, as I’ve stated above, it would appear that to ‘not squander an oil boom’ while running a society based on slave labour is preferable in economic terms to attempting to redistribute the wealth that such an oil boom produces…at least to many of the economically aware contributors to this thread…
So the referencing of the fact that Chavez has, in the eyes of some here, ‘squandered an oil boom’, has not been the main basis for the criticism of his economic policy during the course of this thread??
If you accept that this has in fact been the case (and I don’t see how you can argue otherwise), then there obviously must be examples of other oil-producing societies that have not squandered oil booms, societies that, presumably, the critics of Chavez would point to as preferred alternatives in terms of their social and economic models…societies that are currently not afforded pariah status by the international community
Ive provided an example of one such model and pointed to the fact that such a (preferred) model, in common with many of the other ‘non-squanderers’ of oil-booms that exist globally, have slavery built in as an integral component.
Therefore, if Chavez had gone the Qatari route and sought to enrich his domestic population on the back of imported slave labour, would there be such heated debate as to the merits of his social and economic programs?
Id suggest not. Id further suggest that Venezuela could have been in line to host the 2020 world cup and may even have been held up as a model of progress for the rest of South America…
Or am I mistaken and are we debating something other than the squandering (or not) by Chavez of an oil boom? Because if we’re not then Id suggest that his achievements have been pretty positive in the ‘a lot done more to do’ sense…
Totally unnecessary but this one is for Barney…surely you could have just read back through the thread yourself rather than spouting about ‘straw men’…??
Edit - this isn’t meant to be an attack or an overt criticism of Slasher (although obviously I disagree with the content of his post)…his was just the first post I came across on a reread of the thread.
Its not a ‘straw man’ argument. Its perfectly valid in the context of the arguments against during the course of the thread having been an attack on Chavez’s economic and social programs on the basis that they were the misguided and ultimately idiotic ‘pissing away’ of an oil-boom.
Not only that, but the affording of pariah- status to Venezuela on the basis of his (Chavez) seeking to redistribute wealth (and succeeding to a large degree) across Venezuelan society is puzzling to say the least (or maybe not), especially when contrasted with the attitude of the international community to the success stories of similar oil-producers in the Gulf region.
In terms of the alternatives on offer, I have provided an example of another oil-producing society that plays by the rules advocated by those attacking Chavez ie a country which has not ‘pissed away an oil-boom’ in terms of how ‘success’ is measured by the those embedded within the status quo…to include, one would assume, the hoarding of the natural resource at times and the subsequent selling on of it at (inflated) market prices. That the entire gulf region is now recognised as a “success story”, despite the fact that most, if not all, of those societies actively promote a de facto form of slavery should surely cause the advocates of the status quo/critics of Chavez’s approach to at least consider the righteousness of the underlying premise of the philosophy that reigns supreme across the vast majority of our world ie is to play by the rules, as per the Qatari model, really a superior approach to life generally than that advocated by the late Mr Chavez?? Even when slavery and death are the base element of your ‘competitive’ labour force?? Really??
In terms of your citing of the management of other resource booms in Norway, Chile, Botswana etc, firstly, I don’t believe that Norway is in any way comparable for quite obvious reasons. In terms of Chile, based on the Gini Index, it is now a far more polarised, unequal society than Venezuela which, during the time of Chavez, and according to the same Index, has become one of the most equal societies in the entire Americas. But obviously, again, a person’s view on the desirability or otherwise of doing a roaring trade in slaves could tell a tale in terms of that same person’s view of whether such a measurement is of any real relevance to the world they live in…as for Botswana, as Manuel once said, “I know nothing…”.
This sounds like bullshit to me.
I once lived in a currency-controlled oil-rich country, and despite the fact that the currency was not convertible, I never heard of anyone getting this sort of exchange rate - 7:1. But European newspapers were full of crap like this at the time.
I’ve taken similar claims with a dose of salt ever since.
Why can’t people who share his aims acknowledge that he was incompetent and ineffectual? Look at the rankings for so many variables. It’s a waste of time arguing with you when you can’t admit that.
Compare and contrast the various oil countries
whatever about the SWF look at the non-oil industry in the countries;
Because he didn’t like George Bush; the enemy of my enemy is my friend outlook leads to severe cognitive dissonance.
By any measure the majority of people within Venezuelan society are much better off now than before he came to power…and thats even before you consider the intangible long-term benefits of having encouraged many forms of decentralised autonomy amongst local neighbourhood and regional groupings, all of whom would have been more or less marginalised slum-dwellers prior to his assuming power.
Plus I dont believe that anyone has said that he was perfect. Im certainly not an all-in-favour supporter of the man and his gigantic ego but I think it is disingenuous on the part of his detractors to focus soley and constantly on the negatives.
And with regard to your citing of the list of Sovereign Wealth funds you really are making my point for me ie that standard economic doctrine as espoused by the status quo as it applies to the international community at large is flawed in the extreme. It values the hoarding of wealth by the elites within many of those societies while they at the same time run what are tantamount to slave labour camps!! How is that justifiable by any measure beyond the brainwashed, one-dimensional world of the financial markets and its puppets within the mainstream politicial sphere ??
As most of those who have defended Chavez over the course of this thread have repeatedly stated, Chavez sought to provide an alternative to what had been centuries of de facto slavery within his own country. Nontheless, that he be criticised for the innefectual nature of some of his endeavours is fair and quite justified. However, that he be castigated on the basis of him having undoubtedly improved the lot of the poor majority in exponential terms, by critics who would then cite (in their view) desirable alternatives as being societies which may have hoarded wealth for the use of future generations whilst at the same time importing legions of slaves from abroad (some to be worked to death) is, to my mind, basically mental.
From an examination of your list I note that the top ten valued countries listed are as per follows -
- Norway (Oil)
- Saudi Arabia (Oil)
- UAE/Abu Dhabi (Oil)
- China (Non-Commodity)
- Kuwait (Oil)
- Hong Kong (Non-Commodity)
- Singapore (Non-Commodity)
- China (Non-Commmodity)
- Qatar (Oil)
So, of your top ten most desirables in terms of the wealth they have “put aside” for future generations, six are oil-based. Of the six, beyond Norway, which is quite incomparable to any of the others (for obvious enough reasons IMO) you could perhaps select your preferred model ie the one which Chavez should have followed in his effforts to alleviate the hardship experienced over generations by the poor majority within Venezuelan society, the model which in your view would constitute his not having pissed away an oil boom?
Plenty of toilet-paper in Qatar Ill wager…so long as slaves can wipe their arses whilst being worked to death…at least then we’ll know they’ll have died smelling of lavender…
I would never hold Saudi etc up like that - they’re hell holes for some of the migrant workers - the whole point is that Chavez’ social gains are effectively a result of ** cash handouts** - not building up a sustainable domestic economy. Irish people should know that baubles come to an end.
Obviously Norway is the best boy in the class but there are many other countries that have been more prudent and effective than Chavez- but without the attention seeking, bombastic former golpista asshole in charge they won’t end up being discussed on Western message boards