I went to a conference a few years back, there were lots of South American business people, mostly right wing politically.
I got chatting to one guy from Venezuela, head of a telco, and asked him why he hated Chavez so much.
"We'll, it's mainly about taxation really," he said.
"What, you mean he has raised your taxes?" I asked.
"No, its just that he makes us pay them these days," he replied.
Love him or hate him nobody can deny that Chavez, like Thatcher, changed his country forever and whether that is for better or worse is not really the point, the point is they had a lasting impact.
Thatcher forced Labour to adopt many of her ideas and the same goes for Chavez, he forced his conservative opponents to accept his reforms.
What a buffon - you only have to look at the company he kept: Robert Mugabe, Castro, Ken Livingstone... He has destroyed what should have been the best economy in South America. There has been a series of articles in The Economist setting out just how bad things have got. Devaluation, hyper-inflation, power cuts, the waste of Venezuela's oil wealth, the lack of investment in oil (because no one will invest in his country (except China) and the state oil companies do not have the capital (all taken away to bribe poor voters) or the expertise. The chickens will come home to roost. Great comedy for us but very sad indeed for Venezuela. Here's an overview from a few years ago if you are interested. economist.com/node/16104226
What a buffon - you only have to look at the company he kept: Robert Mugabe, Castro, Ken Livingstone... He has destroyed what should have been the best economy in South America. There has been a series of articles in The Economist setting out just how bad things have got. Devaluation, hyper-inflation, power cuts, the waste of Venezuela's oil wealth, the lack of investment in oil (because no one will invest in his country (except China) and the state oil companies do not have the capital (all taken away to bribe poor voters) or the expertise. The chickens will come home to roost. Great comedy for us but very sad indeed for Venezuela. Here's an overview from a few years ago if you are interested. economist.com/node/16104226
.....a buffoon, yeah, one who kept on getting re-elected by his people in transparently free and fair elections - all monitored by independent observers, he must have been a terrible president to rule for 14 years like that.
Not really a surprise that The Economist is not a fan of Chavez given their politics but I doubt their interests and his interests collide all that much, do you?
Venezuela is one of the richest countries in the world and yet pre-1999 had poverty levels and infant mortality on a par with sub-Saharan Africa - what does that tell you?
Chavez took advantage of the way millions of people had been ignored and neglected by government and used their support to win and keep power and in the process sparked political changes throughout Latin America.
Was he perfect? No, not at all, but he made a big difference to millions of lives in his country by putting resources into the poorest rather than the richest hands - and for this he gets vilified by the powerful.
Chavez will become an iconic figure to his people, just like Reagan and Thatcher are to conservatives, and people will just have to live with that whether they like it or not.
A buffoon, yeah, one who ruled his country for 14 years, whaddya reckon you're going to do with your life then?
His critics failt o recognise just how bad things were in Venezuela before he took over and more importantly just how disempowered, oppressed and voiceless the poor were there. He gave the majority of a voice and he was re-elected by them democratically over a 14 year period.
We don't really have a leg to stand on criticising the Venezuelan government for the company they keep while our ex-PM Tony Blair is paid millions for PR services by current dictatorships in Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.
"Since his landslide victory in 1998, extreme poverty has dropped from nearly a quarter to 8.6 per cent last year; unemployment has halved; and GDP per capita has more than doubled. Rather than ruining the economy – as his critics allege – oil exports have surged from $14.4bn to $60bn in 2011, providing revenue to spend on Chavez’s ambitious social programmes, the so-called “missions” "
.....yes, John Pilger is a prat, that's not news, but the quote from Chavez at the end is wonderful, "We don't want to be rich, to follow the American dream, no, we just want people to live with dignity."
Christ, imagine giving money to poor people to actually improve their lives, what kind of fucked up shit is that, eh?
His critics failt o recognise just how bad things were in Venezuela before he took over and more importantly just how disempowered, oppressed and voiceless the poor were there. He gave the majority of a voice and he was re-elected by them democratically over a 14 year period.
We don't really have a leg to stand on criticising the Venezuelan government for the company they keep while our ex-PM Tony Blair is paid millions for PR services by current dictatorships in Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.
"Since his landslide victory in 1998, extreme poverty has dropped from nearly a quarter to 8.6 per cent last year; unemployment has halved; and GDP per capita has more than doubled. Rather than ruining the economy – as his critics allege – oil exports have surged from $14.4bn to $60bn in 2011, providing revenue to spend on Chavez’s ambitious social programmes, the so-called “missions” "
Sure it was not good pre-Chazez. But it should, by now have been so very much better. For example, what you say about oil misses the underlying issues. Venezuela's oil production has been in steady decline and is down a million barrels a day since 1999. Since Chavez came to power oil exports are down nearly 50% in volume terms and are still falling. Worse, oil exports to the US (probably the only place to actually pay the going rate for the product) are also declining. This is because there is no investment or expertise in the oil industry in Venezuela. Notwithstanding that, there should, still, be extreme wealth coming into the country - but there is not really. 31% of the oil exports go to the Caribbean area at a price well below market rates and, probably, the cost of production. Much of it goes to Cuba (I wonder why?).
Venezuelan oil is in serious trouble. Here's what the well-regarded Centre For Strategic & International Studies thinks needs to be done. I doubt whether any of it will happen.
"Even under the best of circumstances, reform in the energy sector will take a long time to emerge. The damage that has been done to not only PDVSA but to the institutions of the state and civil society could take years to rehabilitate. A few key reasons for this include:
1.revenue from the oil and gas sector that is diverted for political purposes and not reinvested in a way that will drive new production will be hard to direct back to useful investment in the sector, 2.much of the private sector has been driven away from investment in Venezuela and may be reluctant to return, or for the companies in country to re-invest in the short-term given their experience in the 2000s, 3.oil field mismanagement and damage may have likely occurred over the last decade and it will take time and investment to revitalize, 4.many of Venezuela’s core assets are in technologically complex and capital-intensive heavy oil projects that take time and resources to develop and must now be viewed in light of the global array of upstream options that are now on the table for international oil investors as compared to a decade ago, 5.some of Venezuela’s current commercial relationships on the upstream or export side may have to be revisited in light of a more commercially-based hydrocarbon policy, 6.Venezuela’s energy sector is dominated by the state’s decisions and management and it will take time to replace the managerial competency that once existed, 7.highly subsidized oil is a key feature of Venezuelan society and the political will to reform the entire energy sector into one that is more market-based and open to private investment will necessarily have to feed into the domestic demand-side of that equation."
By the way, you claim GDP is on the up. On a per capita basis, adjusted for purchasing power, it is actually down to below 2008 levels. (That is shocking with oil prices running at a high level on the market). Actual GDP in US$ terms declined last year to $316bn from 2011's $387bn. Taking into account the country's inflation rate, currently 22% per annum but averaging 26% per annum for the last 40 years, (which is totally unreal) I'm sure you will see that Chavez' house has been built on sand and will indeed come tumbling down now that his huge charisma is not there to prop it up.
I've got to say, I do like reading these sorts of debates and opinions on here, whether I agree with them or not. My knowledge of global politics and economics is pretty circumstantial so it's always good to learn a little more about certain places of interest, or read a few links.
On Chavez I am quite ambivalent. I only really check the BBC for news and they just put up the more sensationalist stories like 'Chavez switches Venezuela's timezone by half an hour'. I do know though that they have been left behind by other nations when it comes to development, and therefore GDP etc I'd guess. I was in Brazil 3 years ago and general prices were similar to in England, then likewise in Colombia and to a lesser extent Peru. That's probably changed even more so against the British pound now.
Meanwhile literally everyone I met who'd been backpacking in Venezuela had a horror story to tell. Caracas sounds an absolute hell hole to visit, and whilst tourists may get targeted more so by crime you'd presume that it's also of a high rate among citizens. Given the oil they have had to sit on, you'd have expected them to keep pace with other South American nations in most areas.
Anyway, Chavez may have got a lot wrong but he also did a lot right. Of more interest will be where they go from here in Venezuela. That's me trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about.
Well if Venezuela was so fantastic under Chevez, how come Livingstone. Galloway, Absurditan and everyone else who thought he was so marvelous didnt go and live there?
Maybe they couldn't get the right job, language difficulties, plus they would miss their loved ones...it's not so easy to relocate sometimes. I love Switzerland, but the standard of living there is lower than in UK so I wouldn't live there for this reason alone.
I believe in capitalism. But unfortunately, it has to be understood that there are capitalists that want to have poor people to exploit and only care about accumulating more and more money for themselves. It is thought by some that this means wealth trickles down - hence tax cuts for the wealthiest. But figures do not support this theory. It only trickles down when the state makes it through taxes, minimum wages etc.. In South America you have great wealth and abject poverty living side by side. It's all well and good the Economist saying how better Venezuala could do, but the point is, it might make more money but where does that money go and in whose pockets.
We need a capitalism that has a moral compass and nations that measures their success in terms of the wealth of those at the bottom. Yes, people need rewards at the top but people are not a commodity and too much greed isn't good and needs checking by the state. Chavez, for all his faults, looked after the people who needed his help. That is why he got elected time and time again and his people are genuinely mourning him.
Comments
Hopefully Morales in Bolivia will take on the role of annoying the US but it won't have the same comedy value.
I got chatting to one guy from Venezuela, head of a telco, and asked him why he hated Chavez so much.
"We'll, it's mainly about taxation really," he said.
"What, you mean he has raised your taxes?" I asked.
"No, its just that he makes us pay them these days," he replied.
Love him or hate him nobody can deny that Chavez, like Thatcher, changed his country forever and whether that is for better or worse is not really the point, the point is they had a lasting impact.
Thatcher forced Labour to adopt many of her ideas and the same goes for Chavez, he forced his conservative opponents to accept his reforms.
He has destroyed what should have been the best economy in South America. There has been a series of articles in The Economist setting out just how bad things have got.
Devaluation, hyper-inflation, power cuts, the waste of Venezuela's oil wealth, the lack of investment in oil (because no one will invest in his country (except China) and the state oil companies do not have the capital (all taken away to bribe poor voters) or the expertise. The chickens will come home to roost.
Great comedy for us but very sad indeed for Venezuela. Here's an overview from a few years ago if you are interested. economist.com/node/16104226
Not really a surprise that The Economist is not a fan of Chavez given their politics but I doubt their interests and his interests collide all that much, do you?
Venezuela is one of the richest countries in the world and yet pre-1999 had poverty levels and infant mortality on a par with sub-Saharan Africa - what does that tell you?
Chavez took advantage of the way millions of people had been ignored and neglected by government and used their support to win and keep power and in the process sparked political changes throughout Latin America.
Was he perfect? No, not at all, but he made a big difference to millions of lives in his country by putting resources into the poorest rather than the richest hands - and for this he gets vilified by the powerful.
Chavez will become an iconic figure to his people, just like Reagan and Thatcher are to conservatives, and people will just have to live with that whether they like it or not.
A buffoon, yeah, one who ruled his country for 14 years, whaddya reckon you're going to do with your life then?
His critics failt o recognise just how bad things were in Venezuela before he took over and more importantly just how disempowered, oppressed and voiceless the poor were there. He gave the majority of a voice and he was re-elected by them democratically over a 14 year period.
We don't really have a leg to stand on criticising the Venezuelan government for the company they keep while our ex-PM Tony Blair is paid millions for PR services by current dictatorships in Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.
"Since his landslide victory in 1998, extreme poverty has dropped from nearly a quarter to 8.6 per cent last year; unemployment has halved; and GDP per capita has more than doubled. Rather than ruining the economy – as his critics allege – oil exports have surged from $14.4bn to $60bn in 2011, providing revenue to spend on Chavez’s ambitious social programmes, the so-called “missions” "
.....yes, John Pilger is a prat, that's not news, but the quote from Chavez at the end is wonderful, "We don't want to be rich, to follow the American dream, no, we just want people to live with dignity."
Christ, imagine giving money to poor people to actually improve their lives, what kind of fucked up shit is that, eh?
One less good man in the world
This is because there is no investment or expertise in the oil industry in Venezuela. Notwithstanding that, there should, still, be extreme wealth coming into the country - but there is not really. 31% of the oil exports go to the Caribbean area at a price well below market rates and, probably, the cost of production. Much of it goes to Cuba (I wonder why?).
Venezuelan oil is in serious trouble. Here's what the well-regarded Centre For Strategic & International Studies thinks needs to be done. I doubt whether any of it will happen.
"Even under the best of circumstances, reform in the energy sector will take a long time to emerge. The damage that has been done to not only PDVSA but to the institutions of the state and civil society could take years to rehabilitate. A few key reasons for this include:
1.revenue from the oil and gas sector that is diverted for political purposes and not reinvested in a way that will drive new production will be hard to direct back to useful investment in the sector,
2.much of the private sector has been driven away from investment in Venezuela and may be reluctant to return, or for the companies in country to re-invest in the short-term given their experience in the 2000s,
3.oil field mismanagement and damage may have likely occurred over the last decade and it will take time and investment to revitalize,
4.many of Venezuela’s core assets are in technologically complex and capital-intensive heavy oil projects that take time and resources to develop and must now be viewed in light of the global array of upstream options that are now on the table for international oil investors as compared to a decade ago,
5.some of Venezuela’s current commercial relationships on the upstream or export side may have to be revisited in light of a more commercially-based hydrocarbon policy,
6.Venezuela’s energy sector is dominated by the state’s decisions and management and it will take time to replace the managerial competency that once existed,
7.highly subsidized oil is a key feature of Venezuelan society and the political will to reform the entire energy sector into one that is more market-based and open to private investment will necessarily have to feed into the domestic demand-side of that equation."
By the way, you claim GDP is on the up. On a per capita basis, adjusted for purchasing power, it is actually down to below 2008 levels. (That is shocking with oil prices running at a high level on the market). Actual GDP in US$ terms declined last year to $316bn from 2011's $387bn. Taking into account the country's inflation rate, currently 22% per annum but averaging 26% per annum for the last 40 years, (which is totally unreal) I'm sure you will see that Chavez' house has been built on sand and will indeed come tumbling down now that his huge charisma is not there to prop it up.
On Chavez I am quite ambivalent. I only really check the BBC for news and they just put up the more sensationalist stories like 'Chavez switches Venezuela's timezone by half an hour'. I do know though that they have been left behind by other nations when it comes to development, and therefore GDP etc I'd guess. I was in Brazil 3 years ago and general prices were similar to in England, then likewise in Colombia and to a lesser extent Peru. That's probably changed even more so against the British pound now.
Meanwhile literally everyone I met who'd been backpacking in Venezuela had a horror story to tell. Caracas sounds an absolute hell hole to visit, and whilst tourists may get targeted more so by crime you'd presume that it's also of a high rate among citizens. Given the oil they have had to sit on, you'd have expected them to keep pace with other South American nations in most areas.
Anyway, Chavez may have got a lot wrong but he also did a lot right. Of more interest will be where they go from here in Venezuela. That's me trying to sound like I know what I'm talking about.
We need a capitalism that has a moral compass and nations that measures their success in terms of the wealth of those at the bottom. Yes, people need rewards at the top but people are not a commodity and too much greed isn't good and needs checking by the state. Chavez, for all his faults, looked after the people who needed his help. That is why he got elected time and time again and his people are genuinely mourning him.