Venezuela, Hugo Chavez

exactiv

Does anyone know where I could get information on Hugo Chavez. Most of the information and books are in Spanish...

I'm very interested in his rise to power after watching "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". I've found that most of the literature available (online) either paints him as an evil dictator or as a saint. Any pointers in a non biased direction (if such a thing exists) would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

Hobbes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez

Sand is supposed to have loads of links for the "against Chavez" camp but good luck trying to get them out of him.

rsynnott

Hmm, I don't like the look of his military programme at all.

Goodshape

Keep the links coming, don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm just wondering what people here think of Chavez?

Opinions of him seem to be pretty polarised as exactiv said - and that documentary was such a good show if nothing else. Is he as evil or as good as either side make him out to be? Maybe this has been discussed before... I'll have a look.

Hobbes

TBH from what I have seen from most media sites the is legally elected, proved it well after the fact and has implemented programs to help the poor in his country. He is also had to fight government/police corruption that had free reign for so long. His replacement in the Coup that temporary ousted him spoke volumes as to why he is a good guy and why the old regime is better not in control.

DadaKopf

The guy who made the documentary said at a Q&A once that having spent time with Chavez, he couldn't pin his character down, he's just a "very strange person". As far as the man himself goes, I think it's hard to tell if he's an old fashioned South American populist, a typical Venezuelan caudillo (strongman), a soldier, or a genuine progessive social reformer and champion of the poor.

Personally, I'd be inclined to think he's all of these, and it may not necessarily be a bad thing, at least in the context of South America's history. But it's important not to place Venezuela's success on him alone, he has an excellent economic team and many of his social and economic programmes have won the support of the World Bank!

I think, compared with the white, middle class elite that has historically ruled Venezuela who secured their power and wealth through government, Chavez currently has a very strong, and convincing objective: reduce poverty and change the national global structures that create it. Whether he succeeds or not is another thing - as a South American leader, he's up against some serious barriers and Latin American politics and economy has a habit of starting with blusterous optimism and ending in crisis. But I actually think what Chávez is trying to do - despite all the concerns that goes with his strategies (like the use of the military) - look socially and economically sustainable in the long-term and his urban and rural land reform, micro-credit schemes and health & education programmes are vital to economic growth. His economic team has also been exceptional in managing the economic crisis inherited from the Pérez and Caldera governments. However, the question as to whether his Bolívarian Revolution is politically sustainable is another question, and is tied to the country's economy and the government's ability to do what it's promised. If the poor end up getting pissed off, it is worrying to think that he could use the army to suppress opposition, as he does the right-wing opposition.

Anyway, there's good and bad in the man and his leadership.

My 2 cents.

exactiv

Did anyone read the story in the Irish Times on August 30th about the planned "free eye surgery for the poor" (my title, not the official one) programme he wants to put into action. Venezuela and Cuba are saying they'll provide free eye surgery for people who cannot afford it, including flights, and they'll also pay for someone to accompany the patient.

In the same article there was mention of providing low cost fuel to families in poverty in the USA.

I'll try to find a link.

Here's the link , but I'm not subscribed to the Irish Times so I can't access it. I prefer the paper edition

Here's a similar link from the BBC .

DadaKopf

Yeah, Cuba's amazing at eye surgery. Chavez and Castro decided to exchange oil for eye surgery.

The astonishing thing Chavez did most recently was, after the hurricane, to offer the poor in the USA Venezuelan oil at a 40% discount!

GENIOSO!

Subbacultcha

I don't know of anything on teh interweb, but if you're interested in a book check out "The Battle of Venezuala" by Mick McCaughan. He's written for the Irish Times and the Gaurdian, and he's a good friend of my mother.
The book is really good, and I'm not just saying that cos he's a friend

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

to offer the poor in the USA Venezuelan oil at a 40% discount!

GENIOSO!

If you were genuinely poor you wouldn't have a car; it would be no use for heating as the climate is warm/hot 12 months a year.

Hugo is a populist he has no long term vision for Venezeula and as opposed to investing money in fixed infrastructure he likes to do 'high vis' deals with aging despots like fidel. I am not saying that the crowd that tried to overthrow him are any better but Venezuela and Columbia are two very corrupt places. Hugo is no less corrupt than his Columbian counterpart or De Silva in Brazil for that matter.

Chile and possibly Uraguay and Aregentina are about the only model of good governance in Latin America at present.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

I am not saying that the crowd that tried to overthrow him are any better but Venezuela and Columbia are two very corrupt places. Hugo is no less corrupt than his Columbian counterpart or De Silva in Brazil for that matter.

Its one thing saying it. Its another actually pointing us all to where you got this information from.

Thomond Pk wrote:

If you were genuinely poor you wouldn't have a car; it would be no use for heating as the climate is warm/hot 12 months a year.

Actually he has offered it as part of the Katrina support. Just because your poor doesn't mean you dont use oil. Heating :rolleyes: People are dying there because they can't run the air conditioners. Three guesses where they get their power from.

Thomond Pk

Electricity which he does not have the ability to discount. The man is almost as much a looney as Mugabe. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0be69030-1b29-11da-a117-00000e2511c8.html

DublinWriter

DadaKopf wrote:

Yeah, Cuba's amazing at eye surgery.

Cuba have the highest ratio of medical doctors per head of population of any country. Period.

I'm not advocating communism, but I think I know which country I'd rather be sick and elderly in.

I saw the Chavez documentry sponsored by the Irish Film Board, and it ranks amoung one of the best documentries I've seen, ever. It should be made compulsory viewing at second level. It was very revealing regarding American foreign policy.

Chavez was democratically elected, end of story.

...but what I thought was amusing was his weekly hour-long phone-in show on state-TV, could you imagine Bertie/Blair having the balls to do that?

Thomond Pk

Carefully chereographed it is a chardade; whilst Caracas is one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

Electricity which he does not have the ability to discount. The man is almost as much a looney as Mugabe. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0be69030-1b29-11da-a117-00000e2511c8.html

He has the ability to sell the oil at a cheap price. I don't understand your issue? Are you saying because of the fault of the US companies won't drop electricty prices that it is Chavezs fault.

As for the link, thanks. Sounds like he is building a socialist state. This has been known about for some time.

A Dub in Glasgo

Thomond Pk wrote:

whilst Caracas is one of the most dangerous cities in the world.

Never heard it described as such, where did you get your info from?

Wikipedia does not seem to mention it

Thomond Pk

It is a typical Chavez promise; it is purely populist and he knows that it can't be delivered, he knows the structures of energy better than most he is sitting on the fifth largest oil reserves in the World. Socialist regimes hold sway Chile, Argentina and Uraguay, all of which have booming economies despite having much less commodity flows to rely upon. They are intelligent socialists who are investing in systems that will build capacity for future generations.

Chavez is a wall banger who is squandering billions of dollars of non-renewable enrgy revenues. Venezeula will end up like Bolivia when the oil runs out and a diversified economy doesn't exist, interestingly his influences in Bolivia toppled the first decent president Boliva has had in over a decade. But to Hugo 'no importa' it is all part of his purely anti-american agenda which is entirely politically driven.

Examine your theory again, a hostile foreign president has the capacity to get US based privately owned electricity providers and or oil majors and or distributors to sell product 40% below market value. How would he access the US to verify the discounts were passed on? How would he even get his crude processed most of the refining capacity in the Gulf of Mexico will be out of commission for months if not years in some cases.

I suggest you go to Venezeula; spend a month there and revert to us with your view of totalitarianism.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

It is a typical Chavez promise; it is purely populist and he knows that it can't be delivered

If he knows then everyone else would know and would point it out?

Chavez is a wall banger who is squandering billions of dollars of non-renewable enrgy revenues.

Again links please where he is squandering. From what I have seen they even got funds released (much to the pain of the banks) to be spent on projects to help the poor.

Examine your theory again, a hostile foreign president has the capacity to get US based privately owned electricity providers and or oil majors and or distributors to sell product 40% below market value.

As pointed out by yourself he is not doing this (bt this I mean checking it is passed on). Nor does he have the power to do it. Only the US administration does. If he does supply it at 40% discount it is only right that it is passed onto the people? Or do you believe the US should make a profit from it?

I suggest you go to Venezeula; spend a month there and revert to us with your view of totalitarianism.

Or you could document better where you are getting your information from and your bases for argument.

Thomond Pk

Venezuela poised to seize bank's reserves
By Andy Webb-Vidal in Caracas
Published: July 7 2005 15:37 | Last updated: July 7 2005 15:37

Venezuela's central bank is bracing itself for a hostile takeover bid by an unlikely suitor: the government of President Hugo Chávez.


Legislators loyal to Mr Chávez are close to approving a law that will allow the government to withdraw and spend at least $5bn (€4.2bn, £2.9bn) of the bank's international reserves, which currently stand at $29bn.

For more than a year, Mr Chávez has insisted that the level of reserves accumulated by the world's fifth-largest oil exporter is too high, and that the money would be better used for social programmes.

Among Latin American economies, Venezuela has the highest level of reserves as measured by equivalent weeks' worth of imports.

The central bank, says Mr Chávez, should belong to “the people”, and it must come under full control of his radical nationalistic “Bolivarian revolution”.

Government-aligned deputies, who maintain a narrow but effective majority in the National Assembly, began the final debate on the law on Thursday and they predict its passage next week. But the move is leaving some economists aghast at what they see as the demise of the bank's role as guardian of the bolvar, Venezuela's national currency. The bank has tried to resist the law.

Jose Guerra, economic research chief at the bank until earlier this year, says the measure will undermine the value of the currency, as some of the dollars will be converted twice into bolvars.

The move also in effect opens the door to enabling Mr Chávez to finance Venezuela's chronic fiscal deficit with part of the reserves, he added. “The big loser in all of this will be the credibility and the reputation of the central bank as an institution,” said Mr Guerra. “Who's to say that after the first $5bn is withdrawn there won't be another $5bn that's taken out?”

Venezuela's international reserves are invested in a mixture of US Treasuries, Euro-denominated bonds, cash and gold.

Critics say other state entities, such as state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela and Bandes, a state development bank, have about $10bn in overseas accounts, and the government should use some of that money instead of the bank's international reserves.

Gaston Parra, the central bank's president, may resign if the law is passed, sources at the bank say, because of the perceived “illegality” of the government-proposed legislation.

The central bank could challenge the constitutionality of the law in Venezuela's supreme court. But analysts see the court as controlled by the government.

Economists predict that the expenditure of part of the reserves will stoke inflationary pressures, although the impact may be limited in the medium-term because of the existence of price and exchange controls.

“Investors are more concerned with the signal that is sent by the measure, especially given what they see as potential for the seized funds to be used in a non-transparent fashion,” said Vitali Meschoulam, emerging markets strategist at HSBC Securities in New York. “There is a concern that these funds will not be used for productive investments but rather to finance current spending, increasing the risk that inflation may get out of hand.”

Fewer international reserves may harm Venezuela's ability to service its foreign debt if oil prices decline.

Under the draft law, some of the reserves are earmarked for vaguely-worded “strategic situations”.

Mr Chávez, who has been in power for more than six years, faces presidential elections at the end of next year.... Ends

Hobbes

You just posting something I have already read. The bank is upset that Chavez wants to spend money they actually own on the country?

He is also up for a vote. I'm sure legally democratic process will prevail if people are upset about it.

Thomond Pk

So if the government here raided the National Pensions Fund to buy an election and if all the IFSC banks were all forced to have two members of Joe Higgins' Socialist Party sit on their board would you not find it unacceptable.

As for that being the same article one was published on the 4th of September the other on the 4th of July; I suggest you read both.

Out of interest which Latin American Countries have you visited?

DadaKopf

Hmm, very unbiased article :rolleyes:. Maybe you'd like to let us know where you got it.

Thomond PK wrote:

Hugo is a populist he has no long term vision for Venezeula.

No, you're wrong. I already said he's part-populist, but what national leader isn't populist to some extent? But Chavez and his government have very definite long-term plans for Venezuela. The various 'missions' are all aimed at increasing the incomes of the poor through providing education, health care, land reform, legal services, childcare services, micro-credit. He's implemented Plan de Consencio Nacionale - a plan aimed at building national consensus on how to revive the economy by encouraging dialogue between the government, labour and capitalist classes - a move towards, hopefully, partnership-based agreements similar to what Ireland and S. Korea did. He's reforming the parliament to give more represention to women and indiginous people. He's implemented a plan to get rid of corruption in the police forces. He's also channelling oil revenues into various national reserves to see the country through economic turbulence, as oil rich countries often experience. He's also successfully combating corruption in the government and reducing government waste. He's slowly liberalising the oil industry and gradually privatising nationally owned enterprises that aren't profitable unless (according to a new law), privatisation contravenes the objective of reducing poverty and protecting the national interest. He's opening up channels for more public participation (and, yes, politicisation) of state offices.

The ultimate aim of the government is to reduce poverty by diversifying the economy and using Venezuela's oil to fund programmes that will make this happen. He recognises full well that this requires comprehensively changing power relations in the country between the rich whities and the poor mestizos and blacks.

There are still open questions about how much of this is bluster and how much is really happening, but time will tell. As said, the World Bank and IMF of all countries are endorsing many of his "sound" programmes and Venezuela has now qualified for Bank loans. Luckily, because the country has oil, Venezuela can say "no" to loan conditions that they know are barmy.

As for Caracas being one of the most dangerous cities in the world, I think it has one of the highest murder rates of any capital. But a dude I know who lived in favelas in Brazil somewhere I think, but it may actually have been Caracas, said the danger element is actually overstated by people who don't live there.

Thomond Pk

I got it from the FT who under Richard Lapper have a very good and impartial news service; they are equally hard on Columbia and Peru who are both currently governed by pro-US administrations. Both are a disgrace in line with Venezeula; on a recent trip to the region I saw six street children extracting gasoline from a moving pertrol taker with plastic buckets lifted up and down by a rope. The FT have been having a serious go at all of these bad regimes.

Caracas is genuinely that dangerous; it is the only Andean country that I will not take a taxi from the rank at the airport. No electronics or money visible in public; the police don't care about anyone other than their political master whichever side that regional chief is on. Put simply Chavez is presiding over a country that will soon be a dysfunctional as Columbia or Zimbabwe.

When it all goes pear shaped it will take a lot more than a 'Plan de Consencio Nacionale' to get the requisite foreign investment into Venezeula to pick up the pieces. With all the reserves blown on current spending projects then the energy companies really will have a field day and will be able to name their own terms; while a long departed Hugo sits on Lake Geneva talking to his brokers on the mobile.

DadaKopf

When it all goes pear shaped it will take a lot more than a 'Plan de Consencio Nacionale' to get the requisite foreign investment into Venezeula to pick up the pieces.

That's just one of the many initiatives undertaken by the government. What about if the other Missions succeed? What about if land reform revives Venezuela's agricultural sector, the lack of which has brought about 85% urban migration? What about if micro-credit and the blossoming of co-ops and private banks (including banks based on successful models in India) succeed in developing and diversifying small and medium enterprises? What about if the government succeeds in balancing a free market with social objectives enough to encourage national investment? What if the government succeeds in developing regional integration, boosting regional trade and, as a South American trading bloc, benefits from greater trade with Europe?

I won't deny there's a real risk of failure in Venezuela, and I'm not too optimistic, or maybe I'm guardedly optimistic, about how things are going to go.

on a recent trip to the region I saw six street children extracting gasoline from a moving pertrol taker with plastic buckets lifted up and down by a rope

What point is this meant to make? We already know that Venezuelans are overwhelmingly poor.

Put simply Chavez is presiding over a country that will soon be a dysfunctional as Columbia or Zimbabwe.

You've said this a few times. What facts and figures are you basing this on? What exactly makes you jump to this assumption?

cal29

Thomond Pk wrote:

Examine your theory again, a hostile foreign president has the capacity to get US based privately owned electricity providers and or oil majors and or distributors to sell product 40% below market value. How would he access the US to verify the discounts were passed on? How would he even get his crude processed most of the refining capacity in the Gulf of Mexico will be out of commission for months if not years in some cases.

I suggest you go to Venezeula; spend a month there and revert to us with your view of totalitarianism.

The Irish Times explained last week how the plan is supposed to work CITGO who apparently have thousands of petrol stations across the US are majority owned by the state owned Venezeulan oil company and some charity that Jesse Jackson is affiliated to would identify the people who Qualified for the cheap gas.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

So if the government here raided the National Pensions Fund to buy an election

I do not see him doing that from the story you posted. As for the people on the boards of directors. As I said he was democratically elected, he has put in place ways to stop possible corruption so the people are welcome to rise up and question those actions. In fact they have done in a referendum which proved he had the will of the people. A referendum which to independant observers was "Totally fair" (Compare to US elections which Inde.Observers said "Mostly fair").

Out of interest which Latin American Countries have you visited?

I wasn't aware actually commenting on something required that you visted the country in question first. However you seem to be implying that you have visted there.

So with your extensive knowledge you can go in to more details as to where you are getting your facts that the country is being run into the ground. I'd personally like to read them.

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

What about if the government succeeds in balancing a free market with social objectives enough to encourage national investment? What if the government succeeds in developing regional integration, boosting regional trade and, as a South American trading bloc, benefits from greater trade with Europe?

The problem with your theory is that there will be no private sector to provide a balance; he is systamatically driving global players out through measures such as the imposition of government appointees on bank boards; spurious tax charges on energy companies etc. The major banks in Venezuela are spanish, the major energy companies are anglo/dutch.

DadaKopf wrote:

What point is this meant to make? We already know that Venezuelans are overwhelmingly poor.

This example wasn't actually from Venezeula, but I wouldn't enter an industrial district in Venezeula in a local bus; you would be taken out.

DadaKopf wrote:

You've said this a few times. What facts and figures are you basing this on? What exactly makes you jump to this assumption?

Personal experience and experiences of people from neighbouring countries who simply will not do business there as the corruption level has mushroomed over the past five years. This guy is no Lenin he more a Breznev and is busy building his own local oligarchy.

Cal29 wrote:

The Irish Times explained last week how the plan is supposed to work CITGO who apparently have thousands of petrol stations across the US are majority owned by the state owned Venezeulan oil company and some charity that Jesse Jackson is affiliated to would identify the people who Qualified for the cheap gas.

Citgo are a very small player and are geographically tilted towards the North Eastern States. Their last published turnover was $440m and that was for Q3 in 2004. The real poor in the Katrina disater were too poor to afford cars and many perished as a result. I find it deeply offensive that Chavez has used this human tragedy as a political football.

Hobbes,

will you please read the articles; you as a moderator on boards have a responsibility to be objective. I note that you keep bringing this back to comparisons with the US; I also note that you are a moderator on the Islamic board. I am not going to even start to interpret that co-incidence.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

will you please read the articles; you as a moderator on boards have a responsibility to be objective.

I have read the articles. I am asking you to post more based on your other accusations. Don't take this as a personal insult, tbh I would prefer to read other side of the situation as it is hard enough to find such information.

However you have provided two news articles which don't fully cover your accusations. Which is why I would like to read about where you get the other information from.

Oh and moderators do not have a responsibility to be objective outside of their own forums. Even then we are entitled to our own opinions. Moderators are just normal posters.

I note that you keep bringing this back to comparisons with the US; I also note that you are a moderator on the Islamic board. I am not going to even start to interpret that co-incidence.

Yet you have gone and done it. If you bothered to even check up you would see that (a) I am not Muslim and (b) have no clue about Islam. I took moderatorship to stop idiots from posting in the forum. To somehow imply that my moderatorship in that forum is biased my opinion is total bull**** and comical.

As to bringing it back to the US I am not entirely sure what you are talking about. Only comment made to that is Chavez giving oil discount to the US. Please feel free to point out where I have done otherwise though. Oh and the comment about the referendum which is in fact correct (same independant body monitored both votes).

Thomond Pk

1998 49.00
1999 42.80
2000 41.60
2001 39.10
2002 41.50
2003 54.00
2004 53.10
Percentage of households living in poverty by year.
Source: Instituto National de Estadistica, Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela http://www.ine.gov.ve/

The articles do fully cover my argument that Chavez is a corrupt agenda driven maniac; who in firstly against the advice of the Central Bank has given himself the power to squander $5bn of reserves. In the second article he is imposing political control through the imposition of government board members onto the private banking system. What is next full nationalisation and amalgamation of the entire financial system? His dealings in th oil industry are also retrospective:

Shell to answer Venezuela tax charges

By Andy Webb-Vidal in Caracas
Published: August 4 2005 20:07 | Last updated: August 4 2005 20:07

Royal Dutch Shell must on Friday answer allegations by Venezuela that it has failed to pay $130m in back taxes, a response that could have critical implications for several oil companies operating in the country.


The tax claim on Shell forms part of a campaign led by President Hugo Chávez to tighten control over private oil companies, which pump about 40 per cent of the output from the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter.

Mr Chávez and other officials have publicly claimed that multinationals owe as much as $3bn (€2.4bn, £1.7bn) in unpaid taxes, and in recent months Venezuela has increased tax and royalty rates on various types of oil ventures.

“In the past the government had conducted negotiations with private oil operators behind closed doors,” said Patrick Esteruelas, Latin America analyst at Eurasia Group in New York.

‘‘By publicly accusing private oil companies of tax evasion they are being put up against the wall.’’

Venezuela’s tax authority, known as Seniat, last month set a deadline of on Friday for Shell to formally respond to the demand for taxes allegedly unpaid between 2001 and 2004.

Europe’s second-largest oil company has denied claims of tax evasion but it must on Friday say whether it will pay or potentially face a 250 per cent penalty.

For Shell, Venezuela contributes only a fraction of its global oil production portfolio, and analysts say that the company may try to appease the authorities because it has other projects in the pipeline.

Shell is hoping to construct a $3bn petrochemicals plant with Petroleos de Venezuela, the state-owned oil company, and is negotiating the terms of its participation in the $2.7bn Mariscal Sucre offshore natural gas project.

But Shell’s response will set a precedent in the tax dispute with 22 foreign oil companies.

For some the position adopted by Shell will be critical. Harvest Natural Resources, a small Houston-based oil company, has been given an August 12 deadline to formally answer an allegation by the Seniat that it owes $85m in unpaid taxes, a claim it also rejects. Ends

But regardless of what I post you will continue to laud Hugo the media star president simply because his fiery anti-american rhetoric suits your own agenda.

Hobbes

Can you post to the actual totals and not just a general website please?

Also anything other then Andy Webb? I would prefer valid sources (or at least news sites that can help me research where it came from).

simply because his fiery anti-american rhetoric suits your own agenda.

I don't recall mentioning anything of the sort on the thread. Think you can get off "putting words in mouths" and just supplying stuff for me to read.

Oh and do you have a point about Shell with holding taxes story? (Also helps if you quote portions and link to the stories so boards.ie don't remove it for (c) violation).

Thomond Pk

That article proves my point on corruption he is squandering $5bn on current spending projects whilst getting foreign companies 'accused of tax evasion' to invest in the original source of the funds. The owners of the plant & equipment will be 'tax evaders' whilst the $5bn will have disappeared in to the air; most likely Panama which will take up all the existing Venezuelan corporate treasury business.

Andy Webb is the FT correspondant for Venezuela who are probably the most left leaning financial/economic large scale news source in the World.

I thought you weren't a moderator on this board?

Elmo

1. When did Hugo Chavez get into power?
2. Should I trust Shell when they sign lovely contracts with Ray Bruke and Co.?

Thomond Pk

1998-9

Hugo has something very revealing; he like Rambo Burke are doing deals that have no benefit to their respective populations.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

That article proves my point on corruption he is squandering $5bn on current spending projects whilst getting foreign companies 'accused of tax evasion' to invest in the original source of the funds. The owners of the plant & equipment will be 'tax evaders' whilst the $5bn will have disappeared in to the air; most likely Panama which will take up all the existing Venezuelan corporate treasury business.

No it mentions an oil company withholding taxes. Your making the jump.

"Previous Government" were renowned for corruption. Companies which were happy screwing the country get caught.

Andy Webb is the FT correspondant for Venezuela who are probably the most left leaning financial/economic large scale news source in the World.

A single reporter source. That source normally should get their information from somewhere. Or do you take his word as gospel? Its the checking up the facts/accusations you are making I am having a problem finding. I am sure you checked back on the story (The first thing I do when I read a story is find as many variances of it to get a better picture).

I thought you weren't a moderator on this board?

I am not entirely sure what your point is.

Thomond Pk

Hobbes wrote:

No it mentions an oil company withholding taxes. Your making the jump.

There is no jump; the point of the article is that most oil companies are being 'accused of tax evasion' The only one with the scale to resist these probably totally spurious charges are Shell; who with a cleared pitch can do a deal with Hugo almost unopposed. A nice use of state muscle to create a private monopolistic position.

Hobbes wrote:

"Previous Government" were renowned for corruption. Companies which were happy screwing the country get caught.

Where is your data I have supplied rising poverty levels and 3 articles from the last two months.

Hobbes wrote:

A single reporter source. That source normally should get their information from somewhere. Or do you take his word as gospel? Its the checking up the facts/accusations you are making I am having a problem finding. I am sure you checked back on the story (The first thing I do when I read a story is find as many variances of it to get a better picture).

If you read the articles like all FT articles they contain many diverse sources; all of which are respected sources. On Latin American news they are beyond reproach; if not often the last to break the storey because they take the time to accurately verify their facts prior to release.

Hobbes wrote:

I am not entirely sure what your point is.

You were very to highlight 'violation(c)' I have posted on many boards and never had anyone edit or delete anything I have ever written.

gandalf

Actually Thomond Hobbes is well within his rights as a regular poster here to question your sources. Its even covered in the charter.

When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough. If you do not do this upon posting, then please be willing to do so on request.

Don't expect to post here and people not to call your opinions to question.

Politics Posting Guidelines

Thomond Pk

I take what you say as a fair reflection of a good board policy.

However the articles that I posted were initially a direct weblink; which will be open for four days before becoming paid subscription access only. The subsequent articles were by the same author and were closed access. Each of these articles contained clarifications from a number of independent sources. Furthermore I supplied data from the Venezeulan Government that the poverty level has actually risen.

Whilst Hobbes has not supplied one source to back up any of his suppositions. I can only consider that he has lost perspective in his attempts to find flaws in my argument that Chavez is far from a positive influence on Venezuela.

He is a corrupt totalitarian dictator and as one signature on boards says the loonies from the left and right don't have far to travel to meet in effect.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

There is no jump; the point of the article is that most oil companies are being 'accused of tax evasion'

No that is not what is said at all (I have looked at other articles). The government is "Investigating all oil companies". Shell is one that has been evading tax and misreporting earnings. That was from a google of "chavez tax evasion oil companies".

About the only thing I could find in question is the state taking 51% of all forigen run oil businesses within the country.

However at the end of the day they have to agree to the laws to work in that country. Just like any business in Ireland that does business with another country has to obey laws. For example, you can't put "Taiwan" as country in any product document if you do business with China, you can't agree to an embargo or break an embargo in Ireland without the US permission if you do business in the US.*

I (personally) also don't take one site as gospel. If FT were to claim something I would check numerous other reports of the same instance to get a better understanding of the story.

Where is your data I have supplied rising poverty levels and 3 articles from the last two months.

You point me to a the front of website (which isn't in English, so navigation isn't as fast as I'd like it) and claim that is your source for these figures. Can you not link me directly to those figures?

You were very to highlight 'violation(c)' I have posted on many boards and never had anyone edit or delete anything I have ever written.

You didn't write it though. Someone else did. Generally your supposed to post a link to the source and "Fair Use" quote from it. At least one of those FT articles you pasted I got a message I would have to pay to view so (c) aside you could get boards into trouble for it.

Whilst Hobbes has not supplied one source to back up any of his suppositions.

Your the one making the accusations (beyond the stories you posted). I am asking you to show me where you are getting your information from. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you are not backing any of it up. I would like to read it.

I am reading general media/wiki resources to find information on him. It appears you have a better source then me so I'd like to see it.


* Just in case you think I am US bashing. I am not. These are just two countries I am moderatly familar in dealing with.

DadaKopf

He is a corrupt totalitarian dictator

I've seen this accusation bandied about by many people who don't like the guy. I haven't ever seen people who say this present any convincing argument that he's nearly this bad.

They also make the mistake (as do his supporters) of personifying Venezuela and its problems under Chavez's personality. When you say Chavez is "running the country into the ground", you seem to be implying that governance under the Pérez or Caldera governments were any better.

Basically, Venezuela's problems are connected with overwhelming constraints on all sides - systemic constraints - that transcend polarised Venezuelan politics as much as those constraints are defined by them. The prime constraint is political-economic inflexibility which has made it difficult for successive governments to reorient policy fast enough to achieve higher growth.

So if you want to popularise Chavez, go ahead. If you want to call him a "corrupt totalitarian dictator", please provide evidence - a litany of evidence, not just self-serving one-off soundbites.

Elmo

Is there any date for the rate of Proverty pre 1998 or did they just start to collect that information.

From the Documentry by RTE, I personnelly didn't warm to any of the rich in the Programme.

Certainly I did not like some of the comments coming from them like (and i paraphrase)

You should have to work to get where you are in the world and we have worked they haven't they deserve nothing.

IMO you have some responisablity to provide people with the resources to work.

IMO Shell are not a great company to support

However I cannot say that I know much about the suituation over their other then what I saw on the Documentry, and I don't see what the makers of that film have to gain by supporting Chavez.

From what I gathered

1. Chavez was democratically elected
2. The opposition/rich tryed to over throw him (while the Documentry did try to say that their was some US involvement, I cann't say they said anyhthing definate to support their claims but they told us that)
3. Chavez has provide education to many of the people of in his country.
4. The Private TV companies are Anti Chavez

If the Venezuelian people want Chavez then they can have Chavez its not up to us. Just as with Bush in the US.

I will be taking a closer look at Venezuela over the coming years.

I don't think I should trust Shell.

Thomond Pk

DadaKopf wrote:

So if you want to popularise Chavez, go ahead. If you want to call him a "corrupt totalitarian dictator", please provide evidence - a litany of evidence, not just self-serving one-off soundbites.

Taking $5,000,000,000 out of Central Bank Reserves against professional advice; imposing govenment appointed board members on every private bank and imposing politically motivated tax charges on half the players in the largest industry that have the potential to drive half that industry out of the country whilst negotiating with one company under investigation for 'tax evasion' are merely symptomatic of Chavez's autocratic style.


This follows on from land seizures; the Parmalat collapse was also heavily linked to a Venezeulan take-over although the paper trail on that is not too clear yet as the parmalat investigations are in the early stages.

I am not taking sides in Venezuela politics the opposition are equally suspect and the Coup was disgraceful but to justify Chavez's actions because the others plotted a coup is ridiculous. It is also insulting to the countries in the region who have got it right; places like Chile and Uraguay and more laterly Argentina.

Chavez is an extremely destabilising influence on the region; having cut back on anti narco-terrorist programmes; been engaged in multiple diplomatic stand-offs with his closest neighbour and largest potential trading partner Colombia. There are strong suspicions that he was instrumental in the fall of Guterretz in Ecaudor and was very quick to use his financial muscle to enter the bond market in Ecaudor as soon as a new administration was secured there. He was instrumental in the fall of the government in Bolivia in June through his financing of the Coca growers leader Eva Morales.

Make no mistake Chavez has a much wider political agenda that extends far beyond the borders of his own juristiction. As a regular visitor to the region the opinions I am getting is that he is hated and feared in equal measure in all of the politically fragile states from Colombia to Bolivia and regarded as a comical figure in the more stable ones.

Elmo

I don't know is Colombia politcal stable, is the Colombian goverment a trust worthy government? (Please When i ask that i don't need as much of an igorant answer from either the PDs or the Sinn Feiners on boards).

again i think that over all I will have to look at south america in closer detail to comment.

He was instrumental in the fall of the government in Bolivia in June through his financing of the Coca growers leader Eva Morales.

Again not knowing the situation is Bolivia. Was he wrong to help Eva Morales? What was the Bolivian Government like?

Guterretz in Ecaudor

What was Guterretz like? was he a good leader? was he wrong to help in his fall?

Thomond Pk

Elmo wrote:

I don't know is Colombia politcal stable, is the Colombian goverment a trust worthy government? (Please When i ask that i don't need as much of an igorant answer from either the PDs or the Sinn Feiners on boards).

Colombia is extremely dysfunctional; the 3000 abductions a year has declined slightly; It is like a much more intense version of Northern Ireland in 1982-5; if you get stopped it could be the Police, Army, FARC (Provos) Right Wing Militias (UVF) or just general bandits.

The governemnt under Uribe could be regarded as Thatcherite in style in every way; although the security situation has improved they still only control about 70% of the country now.

Elmo wrote:

Again not knowing the situation is Bolivia. Was he wrong to help Eva Morales? What was the Bolivian Government like?

The last president was regarded as good; his approval ratings were over 60% before Morales started to stir the pot. It stemmed from Gas taxes which were agreed at 30%; morales & co wanted this upped to 60% retrospectively. Given the underdeveloped state of the industry such a move would starve the country of vital foreign investment in the energy sector. When the president refused to ratify the demand Morales shut the country down with a series of blockades.

Elmo wrote:

What was Guterretz like? was he a good leader? was he wrong to help in his fall?

Gueterretz was like Chavez a left leaning president who was elected on making promises to rural lobby groups. He had a good financial record and restructured much of the countries debt away from the Paris Club to IMF and quoted bonds. His fiscal rectitude was a good long term play and rising commodity prices kept the effects of fiscal discipline to a minimum.

DadaKopf

The governemnt under Uribe could be regarded as Thatcherite in style in every way; although the security situation has improved they still only control about 70% of the country now.

Although Thatcher was never part of one of the most powerful drugs cartels in Colombia. Uribe is part of the Medellin cartel, which Pablo Escobar led until his assassination. So if you consider the state, under the leadership of a drug baron, controlling 70% of the country is an improvement, fine. Sounds mad to me.

Colombia is fúcked.

Thomond, what would you like to see happen, policy-wise, in Venezuela? I don't mean it like, "Chavez should combat corruption", I mean longer-term stuff, endgames, that sort of thing.

Thomond Pk

I would like to see a National Development plan plot out their investment in

>1 Energy
>2 Transport
>3 Healthcare
>4 Education
>5 A pension fund
>6 Alternative Energy

Re: Colombia; it doesn't deserve to be called a country as Edith Bettencourt could testify if we ever get to see her again

DadaKopf

I would like to see a National Development plan plot out their investment in

>1 Energy
>2 Transport
>3 Healthcare
>4 Education
>5 A pension fund
>6 Alternative Energy

Yes, but, what policies would you like to see? You've missed out on some other important policy areas anyway.

Thomond Pk

I think in the case of Venezuela it is such a commodity rich country that the main policy must be to get the government revenue base into programmes that are visable. As the capital/infrastructural base is built employment levels will rise and services get better as well.

In relation to foreign policy it is simply a case of eliminating the rhetoric and re-aligning prime relationship status away from Cuba and towards other South American Countries such as Chile, Uraguay, Argentina and redefining the relationship with Brazil.

Regional development policy needs to be based on the adandonment of the 'Andena' block and entering of talks like Peru and Bolivia for membership of the Mercesor group.

Security needs to be based on strengthening domestic controls over narco-terrorists and not political rivals and foreign destabalisation in places like Ecaudor and Bolivia.

Judicial: needs to respect the independence of the judiciary

Economy: Shift the focus of spending from current to capital spending with a bias towards productive infrastructure. Plan for a less protective regime with full Mercesor membership the prime objective.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

I think in the case of Venezuela it is such a commodity rich country that the main policy must be to get the government revenue base into programmes that are visable. As the capital/infrastructural base is built employment levels will rise and services get better as well.

Prior to Chavez taking power (and the short time the coup lasted) the power/rich was held by a small percentage of the population. From what I can see Chavez is removing it from these people and spreading it around.

Even with Chavez in power still a lot of these are holding these powerbases. The police force is a good example.

He may not be doing it in a way that is making friends but that is what it appears to what I have seen (from reports/media).

As for security, bare in mind that some of his political rivals have threatend to kill him among with taking the country by force.

Thomond Pk

Hobbes wrote:

Prior to Chavez taking power (and the short time the coup lasted) the power/rich was held by a small percentage of the population. From what I can see Chavez is removing it from these people and spreading it around.

He is spreading a certain amount of it around, but there is no long term benefit to spreading money around with no return on the money. If the same money was put into capital projects it would stimulate the economy and have a similar effect on the same socio-economic groups through higher employment levels. The money that Chavewz is throwing around to his supporters will not last when commodity prices recede and then they really will have problems.

The fact that previous governments had an equally poor record in economic development is no excuse for financial recklessness. Just becuase the waste is being channelled to a larger group of cronies cannot justify stupidity.

Hobbes

Thomond Pk wrote:

but there is no long term benefit to spreading money around with no return on the money.

Programs like Free Health care that was unknown prior to him being in power? Building free health care clinics?

Subsidized food stores that allow people to afford basic foodstuffs?

Programs to help increase literacy and basic education among the general population. (This has been applauded by all but those who oppose him).

Program to start small start-up businesses being created to create business.

Or the major importing of teachers from other countries to help with this?

Or land reforms to get people to farm/move out of the city. Despite the controversial provos in this (taking land from private owners who dispute or don't use it) they have not been enacted and currently only government land has been given.

From what I have seen so far he is increasing the quality of life for a lot of people and helping them become more functional to the running of the country.

Now if he was using the money to line his own pockets I'd love to see that story and I'm pretty sure the opposition would be jumping all over that story.

Elmo

>1 Energy
>2 Transport
>3 Healthcare
>4 Education
>5 A pension fund
>6 Alternative Energy

In that Order?

Also you will get a return from a well educated society. E.G. Ireland.

IMO: Money makes the world go round, people make money go round.

:. if people don't have money then money cannot be spent