B-Large Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Damn those stupid and ignorant poor for continuing to vote for him. They should realize that it is only economic growth that matters. So what if they continue to live in abject poverty with no access to education or healthcare while the rich get even richer. Eventually the trickle-down effect will mean that their descendants might enjoy a better standard of living. I think there is a big difference between the point you are trying to make, and the reality of Mr Chavez and his rule over his country. By nationalizing at will, exerting control over all industries, centralizing power and controlling media, you ensure all citizens see a lack of oppotunity and less prosperity, while at the same time perpetual your personal power- people don't starve, they have a roof over their head, but in a resource rich country, should skimping by be enough? In Venezuela, I assume the very few enjoy the true spoils, those who are friends of the Dictator- not too mention said dictator was besties with Iran- !@#$ing Iran..... I believe your point it that helping the poor is a good thing, and that left policies can achieve that goal... I agree to a point, but you have to cite places like the UK and Canada to make a reasonble arguement. While they have much more socialist polices than the US, they also promote opportunity and bettering of one's position in life. I have friends in both places, one in Canada that could care less ho wmuch he pays in taxes, he loves the benefits, he loves his life. My other buddy lives in Manchester, is an unabashed Welfare State supporter and can't imagine it being any other way... both, whether they choose to or not have opportunities to better themselves, and that is the difference. The difference in opportunity. Dictators squash it, we promote it... that why people flock here, in lieu of our faults... Edited March 7, 2013 by B-Large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) • Unemployment has dropped from 14.5% of the total labour force in 1999 to 7.6% in 2009 • GDP per capita has risen from $4,105 to $10,801 in 2011 • Oil exports have boomed - Venezuela has one of the top proven oil reserves in the world and in 2011 Opec put the country's net oil export revenues at $60bn. In 1999 it stood at $14.4bn I wonder how much the increase of oil prices contributed to these numbers? It's a small country, if the price of oil increases close to 500%, it is only natural to see GDP per Capita rise along with a decline in the unemployment rate, and they should be doing much better than what it is that they are doing. • Poverty has decreased - in 1999, 23.4% of the population were recorded as being in extreme poverty, this fell to 8.5% in 2011 according to official government figures According to "official government figures" I can tell you this, the standard of living for the poor in Venezuela or Bolivia is no better today than it was 15 years ago. Can anyone imagine what would happen to Venezuela if the price of oil would drop down to $60 a barrel, under Chavez's policies? It would be armageddon over there Edited March 7, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I wonder how much the increase of oil prices contributed to these numbers? It's a small country, if the price of oil increases close to 500%, it is only natural to see GDP per Capita rise along with a decline in the unemployment rate, and they should be doing much better than what it is that they are doing. According to "official government figures" I can tell you this, the standard of living for the poor in Venezuela or Bolivia is no better today than it was 15 years ago. Can anyone imagine what would happen to Venezuela if the price of oil would drop down to $60 a barrel, under Chavez's policies? It would be armageddon over there You mean like Chili when Copper prices fell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) You mean like Chili when Copper prices fell Hold on, are you comparing "Chili" (Chile) to Venezuela? Sure, their main commodity will have an impact on growth, but the main distinction between the two, and there are many aside from fiscal policies is that they have invested in many other areas to help sustain growth when their main export drops off, whereas Venezuela hasn't. The entire world plummeted in 2008/2009, the fact that they had only had one year that they were barely negative says a lot. http://www.gfmag.com...l#axzz2Msqd5p9y Where as Venezuela endured two years of negative GDP growth http://www.gfmag.com...l#axzz2Msqd5p9y Yep, just like Chile Edited March 7, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Oh, so "travelling" is where you picked this bit of information from? Got it So you agree with what I said then? That it's primarily because of a transfer of wealth If by transfer of wealth you mean renegotiating contracts with global resource extraction corps and renegotiating a bond issue that was deemed illegal from the previous administration, yes. So if reading and traveling to a country are not adequate sources, then what exactly gives one the ability to pontificate oh wise one? Hold on, are you comparing "Chili" (Chile) to Venezuela? Sure, their main commodity will have an impact on growth, but the main distinction between the two, and there are many aside from fiscal policies is that they have invested in many other areas to help sustain growth when their main export drops off, whereas Venezuela hasn't. The entire world plummeted in 2008/2009, the fact that they had only had one year that they were barely negative says a lot. http://www.gfmag.com...l#axzz2Msqd5p9y Where as Venezuela endured two years of negative GDP growth http://www.gfmag.com...l#axzz2Msqd5p9y Yep, just like Chile That socialist president Bachelet was smart enough to set up a sovereign wealth fund when copper prices were high, which allowed Chili (I like that spelling better) to weather the crisis better than other SA countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Any truth to the rumor he named Sean Penn as his successor? Uh oh. The conspiracy theories are getting worse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Come again? When my parents left Italy, they were dirt poor and had to live in a friends apartment till they could afford rent. I've been trying to get the !@#$ out of Montreal for the last three years but I won't leave for something that isn't much better because I still get a relatively decent standard of living here. It's much easier to pick up and leave when **** is really bad but when **** is so/so, it's easier to choose the status quo. Italy? That's the hell hole your parents escaped from?, I thought they came from Venezuela, so they escaped leftist Italy to go to that libertarian paradise of Montreal, man I really can't say !@#$ you enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) If by transfer of wealth you mean renegotiating contracts with global resource extraction corps and renegotiating a bond issue that was deemed illegal from the previous administration, yes. So if reading and traveling to a country are not adequate sources, then what exactly gives one the ability to pontificate oh wise one? That socialist president Bachelet was smart enough to set up a sovereign wealth fund when copper prices were high, which allowed Chili (I like that spelling better) to weather the crisis better than other SA countries. Re negotiating contracts is a good thing, in the terms that they did it under, wasn't. So I guess you are ok with their treatment of Owens-Illinois, Conoco , Exxon etc.? Also, why no mention of personal seizures of farmland and possessions of private owners? Just shows what you are all about That socialist president Bachelet was smart enough to set up a sovereign wealth fund when copper prices were high, which allowed Chili (I like that spelling better) to weather the crisis better than other SA countries. And that is a bunch of bull ****. Chile weathered the storm better not because of a decision to set up a sovereign wealth fund, which was originally created well before she got there you twit, it was able to weather the storm because of the diverse investments it has made for decades. And it doesn't surprise me one bit that you prefer the incorrect spelling of Chile. Edited March 7, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Whatever happened to the leftist mantra that it's better to teach a man to fish than to hand him a bunch of sardines? Obviously it flies out the window when talking about Chanezian economics. I also love how relativism is not in vogue in comparing countries that have a strong history of private ownership, protection of individual rights and centuries of laws protecting those institutions to places where the conquistadorian yoke, racial and class distinctions are still alive and kicking. Of course, standards of living will rise in the immediate aftermath of massive wealth distribution. But where to go from there? It's like the feel-do-gooders completely ignore the 80-year old live experiment with socialism that proved that it didn't work. (Yes, I know, Jozef, Nikita & Leonid's problem was the program wasn't big enough.) It should not surprise anyone what is happening in Venezuela. You get a short term stimulus by throwing money at the poor and lift them out of dire poverty. You buy their loyalty, and they're happy that they're not eating dirt anymore. But that progress stalls, because while they're no longer dirt poor, they have no way to move beyond merely poor. So you continue to buy their loyalty by blaming the evil empire to the north for their problems. Meanwhile, you stall any real economic progress the country can make, completely devastate growth in your export industry. Waste your reserves on supporting other tinpot dictators in the region, so much so that it endangers the country. Then you contract cancer and die before the real problems hit. Yeay. As opposed to Mexico, which was a complete basket case two decades ago, which has flourishing growth and a semblance of a formation of a middle class. And calling Bachelet and Lula socialists is nearly sa funny as referring to Obama as a centrist. Sure, they like to see those monikers in the press, but Bachelet continued with a pro-business pr-growth agendas of her conservative predecessors, and you couldn't find a more polar opposite of the "socialist" Lula than the true socialist to his south. Which camp is the more pragmatic Humala joining? His nominal socialists or the growth oriented conservatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 (edited) Italy? That's the hell hole your parents escaped from?, I thought they came from Venezuela, so they escaped leftist Italy to go to that libertarian paradise of Montreal, man I really can't say !@#$ you enough. Yes post WWII Italy was certainly a paradise, especially in the south I didn't say my parents escaped Venezuela, my father lived there for a period. Edited March 7, 2013 by meazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Uh oh. The conspiracy theories are getting worse... You're like the Terry Jacks of PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Yes post WWII Italy was certainly a paradise, especially in the south I didn't say my parents escaped Venezuela, my father lived there for a period. Sorry it's hard to find "pros" from a dictatorship especially being the son of a parent who lived in Venezuela for some 20 years. There is a reason they left for this frozen **** hole. Funny that people who see first hand the reality of leftist policies never want to go back. Come again? When my parents left Italy, they were dirt poor and had to live in a friends apartment till they could afford rent. I've been trying to get the !@#$ out of Montreal for the last three years but I won't leave for something that isn't much better because I still get a relatively decent standard of living here. It's much easier to pick up and leave when **** is really bad but when **** is so/so, it's easier to choose the status quo. So tell me when did your parents leave Italy and when did your dad live in Venezuela before he moved to Montreal because right now it feels like you're trying to tell me that De Gasperi was a leftist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 So tell me when did your parents leave Italy and when did your dad live in Venezuela before he moved to Montreal because right now it feels like you're trying to tell me that De Gasperi was a leftist. Yep I realized that after I wrote it, my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Re negotiating contracts is a good thing, in the terms that they did it under, wasn't. So I guess you are ok with their treatment of Owens-Illinois, Conoco , Exxon etc.? Also, why no mention of personal seizures of farmland and possessions of private owners? Just shows what you are all about And that is a bunch of bull ****. Chile weathered the storm better not because of a decision to set up a sovereign wealth fund, which was originally created well before she got there you twit, it was able to weather the storm because of the diverse investments it has made for decades. And it doesn't surprise me one bit that you prefer the incorrect spelling of Chile. Renegotiating contracts to keep more of the country's wealth generated from its natural resources, yes. Especially when there were corrupt regimes that preceded. This has allowed Correa to pay for his social programs without attacking the rich and pursuing your wealth distribution from within. Over the long run, a healthy, better educated population will generate more wealth and growth than the extremes of poverty that existed prior to the Bolivarian Revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Over the long run, a healthy, better educated population will generate more wealth and growth than the extremes of poverty that existed prior to the Bolivarian Revolution. Yup. Worked great in Cuba & Soviet Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 I just realized that I am actuall eating popcorn while reading this thread. That is all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Can you provide a link for this information? I'm specifically wondering about the link between the increases in GDP by a factor of 2.3 and the decrease of the Bolivar over the same period of time by a factor of about 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 Renegotiating contracts to keep more of the country's wealth generated from its natural resources, yes. Especially when there were corrupt regimes that preceded. This has allowed Correa to pay for his social programs without attacking the rich and pursuing your wealth distribution from within. Over the long run, a healthy, better educated population will generate more wealth and growth than the extremes of poverty that existed prior to the Bolivarian Revolution. Wow, you are one warped individual... No sane rational person believes that Chavez has been good for the country of Venezuela. At least we all now know that you have extreme views of your economic policies. Good to know you support Chavez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 those slums were there before socialism - personally I favor capitalism, you know the real stuff but lets speak the truth, extreme socialism only flourishes where what went before sucked - what the !@#$ was going on the hundred years before Chavez ? there was a time when Venezuela got a 1% on each barrel of oil extracted that's not capitalism that's predatory- It's like people have never been exposed to history there are limits to what people are willing to take - some times I think there are people in the U.S. who really want to flirt with those limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts