NationStates Jolt Archive

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced plans Monday to nationalize Venezuela's electrical and telecommunications companies, pledging to create a socialist state in a bold move with echoes of Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution.

"We're moving toward a socialist republic of Venezuela, and that requires a deep reform of our national constitution," Chavez said in a televised address after swearing in his Cabinet. "We are in an existential moment of Venezuelan life. We're heading toward socialism, and nothing and no one can prevent it."

Chavez, who will be sworn in Wednesday to a third term that runs through 2013, also said he wanted a constitutional amendment to eliminate the autonomy of the Central Bank and would soon ask the National Assembly, solidly controlled by his allies, to give him greater powers to legislate by presidential decree.

The nationalization appeared likely to affect Electricidad de Caracas, owned by Arlington, Virginia-based AES Corp., and C.A. Nacional Telefonos de Venezuela, known as CANTV, the country's largest publicly traded company.

"All of that which was privatized, let it be nationalized," Chavez said, referring to "all of those sectors in an area so important and strategic for all of us as is electricity."

"The nation should recover its ownership of strategic sectors," he said.

Before Chavez was re-elected last month with nearly 63 percent of the vote, he promised to take a more radical turn toward socialism.

Chavez said that lucrative oil projects in the Orinoco River basin involving foreign oil companies should be under national ownership. He didn't spell out whether that meant a complete nationalization, but said any vestiges of private control over the energy sector should be undone.

"I'm referring to how international companies have control and power over all those processes of improving the heavy crudes of the Orinoco belt -- no -- that should become the property of the nation," Chavez said.
Partnerships sought

In the oil sector, Chavez didn't appear to be ruling out all private investment. Since last year, his government has sought to form state-controlled "mixed companies" with British Petroleum PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Total SA and Statoil ASA to upgrade heavy crude in the Orinoco. Such joint ventures have already been formed in other parts of the country.

Chavez threatened last August to nationalize CANTV, a Caracas-based former state firm that was privatized in 1991, unless it adjusted its pension payments to current minimum-wage levels, which have been repeatedly increased by his government.

After Chavez's announcement on Monday, American Depositary Receipts of CANTV immediately plunged 14.2 percent on the New York Stock Exchange to $16.84 (€12.95) before the exchange halted trading. An NYSE spokesman said it was unknown when trading might resume for CANTV, the only Venezuelan company listed on the Big Board.

Investors with sizable holdings in CANTV's ADRs include some well-known names on Wall Street, including Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., UBS Securities LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co.

But the biggest shareholder, according to Thomson Financial, appears to be Brandes Investment Partners LP, an investment advisory company in California. Also holding a noteworthy stake is Julius Baer Investment Management LLC, a Swiss investment manager.

Chavez's nationalization announcement came in his first speech of the year, a fiery address in which he used a vulgar word roughly meaning "idiot" to refer to Organization of American States Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza.

Chavez lashed out at Insulza for questioning his government's decision not to renew the license of an opposition-aligned TV station.

"Dr. Insulza is quite an idiot, a true idiot," Chavez said. "The insipid Dr. Insulza should resign from the secretariat of the Organization of American States for daring to play that role."
Shades of Cuba

Cuba nationalized major industries shortly after Castro came to power in 1959, and Bolivia's Evo Morales moved to nationalize key sectors after taking office last year. The two countries are Chavez's closest allies in Latin America, where many leftists have come to power in recent years.

On Wednesday -- hours after Chavez is sworn in for another term -- former revolutionary Daniel Ortega returns to the presidency in Nicaragua.

In Managua, Venezuelan Ambassador Miguel Gomez indicated Monday that the two countries planned to work closely together, and said Nicaragua could eventually become Venezuela's top aid recipient -- getting even more help than Cuba and Bolivia, which benefit heavily from Venezuela's petro-diplomacy.

The United States remains the top buyer of Venezuelan oil, which provides Chavez billions of dollars for social programs aimed at helping the poor in countries around the region.

Gomez said Chavez and Ortega planned to sign an agreement on Thursday providing Nicaragua with resources -- he described them as loans -- for infrastructure, health, education, agricultural development and the construction of 200,000 houses, as well as energy and debt forgiveness.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/01/08/chavez.media.ap/index.html

---

Maybe the U.S. should nationalize Citgo Petroleum Corporation? ;)

I wonder just what the need is for more presidential power...legislation by executive decree?? I thought he was popularly elected...shouldn't he have the support he needs to do what he likes?

He's also doing a good job of alienating foreign investment, from the looks of things. I'm not so sure that's a good idea, what with the instability of energy prices. Just look at the companies with an interest in CANTV...are they going to be so willing to invest money in Venezuela with constant threats of nationalization?

Lastly, what's with the blast on Insulza? If the U.S. did the same thing to Fox News under a Democratic President, you can bet we'd hear ALL about it.

But Chavez does it, and not only is it OK, but his critics are "idiots" and "insipid"?

That, coupled with the blast on Bush at the U.N...Chavez sounds less like a world leader, and more like a 12 year old who got insulted on the playground.

Your thoughts?

Hooray for companero Chavez!

Who honestly didn’t see this nationalization coming?

And am I the only one who thinks utilities = janitors mops

Can we make his hair fall out yet?

He'll keep the oil flowing to the bitter end however.

I wonder just what the need is for more presidential power...legislation by executive decree?? I thought he was popularly elected...shouldn't he have the support he needs to do what he likes?
That's because he's doing it in the name of "fighting imperialism and capitalism with socialism" or whatever that professional nitwittery he babbles on about so continually.



Lastly, what's with the blast on Insulza? If the U.S. did the same thing to Fox News under a Democratic President, you can bet we'd hear ALL about it.

But Chavez does it, and not only is it OK, but his critics are "idiots" and "insipid"?

That, coupled with the blast on Bush at the U.N...Chavez sounds less like a world leader, and more like a 12 year old who got insulted on the playground.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts exactly, I've often described Chavez as such.

Can we make his hair fall out yet?

I think we should be more focused on burning his wardrobe

Honestly president Ahmadinejad goes through all that effort and he goes and ruins the axis of Fabulous by dressing like he’s in a 1960’s yacht club

edit: nobody liked my post :(

That's a wonderful news, congratulations Hugo Chavez !

It was more than time to take back the control of those fundamental sectors, and put in the service of the Venezuelian people, not in the service of outside investors who just care about taking as much money as they can.

Electricity, communication are critical domains, having them controlled by private interests make your country much less a democracy (in which the citizen control the critical domains) and much more a ploutocracy (in which the wealthy control them), and if those interests are outsiders, it makes your country no longer independant.

Viva Hugo Chavez ! Viva Bolivarianismo ! Viva socialismo !

As for not renewing the license, I should remind you that RCTV _actively_ participated in a _coup_ against the democratically elected president... Just not renewing the license to the frequency (but they are still allowed to transmit on cable, no one is sent in jail, ...) is a very laxist reaction, if a TV channel would actively support a coup against Bush, you can be sure that many of them would end up in Guanatanamo !

I wonder when he will get around to expelling the 'asians'.

That's a wonderful news, congratulations Hugo Chavez !

It was more than time to take back the control of those fundamental sectors, and put in the service of the Venezuelian people, not in the service of outside investors who just care about taking as much money as they can.

Electricity, communication are critical domains, having them controlled by private interests make your country much less a democracy (in which the citizen control the critical domains) and much more a ploutocracy (in which the wealthy control them), and if those interests are outsiders, it makes your country no longer independant.

Welcome to the wide world of internationalism and globalization. One of the legs of the Kantian traingle. When we rely on each other economically, that means we're more likely to be nicer to each other. This is one of the secondary reasons that Autarky is a terrible, terrible idea.

Furthermore, his actions make little economic sense, almost as little as your leftist rantings.

Viva Hugo Chavez ! Viva Bolivarianismo ! Viva socialismo !
Viva ruina económica!

As for not renewing the license, I should remind you that RCTV _actively_ participated in a _coup_ against the democratically elected president... Just not renewing the license to the frequency (but they are still allowed to transmit on cable, no one is sent in jail, ...) is a very laxist reaction, if a TV channel would actively support a coup against Bush, you can be sure that many of them would end up in Guanatanamo !

That's a dubious charge at best.

Beyond that, he's revoking their license because he does not like their political message, their opposition to his government, not because of their questionable role in the coup.

I guess it's always justified if Saint Hugo does it. I honestly cannot believe the level of doublethink that's going on in your head.

Welcome to the wide world of internationalism and globalization. One of the legs of the Kantian traingle. When we rely on each other economically, that means we're more likely to be nicer to each other. This is one of the secondary reasons that Autarky is a terrible, terrible idea.

Not wanting to be have key industries controlled by foreign investors is completly different from refusing all trade. Venezuela is very active in creating international trade, within ALBA, within Mercosur, with African or Asian countries. But not the western-imposed style of trade, with foreign investors buying fundamental services, and then earning money when Venezuelian sell stuff to Venezuelian !

Furthermore, his actions make little economic sense, almost as little as your leftist rantings.

What makes very little economic sense is to allow foreign investors to take money on a yearly basis, forever, from Venezuelian workers providing services to Venezuelian citizen. That's robbery ! Taking back the control of those industries, and preventing this constant "foreign tax" is what makes economic sense, not the opposite.

It could make sense to call for foreign investors when you don't have anything. But Venezuela has oil, now. The wisest action to do now is to use the oil money so that, in the long term, as few as possible Venezuelian money is taken by foreign people.

It's very comparable to owing and not renting your flat... on the long term, not having to pay the monthly fee is what is making sense. If you have nothing at start, you can't buy and are forced to rent. But Venezuela HAS money. So better buy (take control of their own services) than rent (rely upon foreing investors).


That's a dubious charge at best.

That's not dubious at all. RCTV support to the coup was absolutely obvious, they didn't even try to hide it.

Beyond that, he's revoking their license because he does not like their political message, their opposition to his government, not because of their questionable role in the coup.

That's just not true. What he doesn't like in their political is their support to the coup, nothing more.

What makes very little economic sense is to allow foreign investors to take money on a yearly basis, forever, from Venezuelian workers providing services to Venezuelian citizen. That's robbery ! Taking back the control of those industries, and preventing this constant "foreign tax" is what makes economic sense, not the opposite.
That's robbery? Last I checked, a firm was providing a service to the Venezuelan people, voluntarily. They did not require anyone to purchase their service, and they were clearly allowed to start their own firm to attempt to provide utilities.

It could make sense to call for foreign investors when you don't have anything. But Venezuela has oil, now. The wisest action to do now is to use the oil money so that, in the long term, as few as possible Venezuelian money is taken by foreign people.
That's downright goofy. Even in the United States foreign investment is an important source of income for many people, American autoworkers are employed by Honda, BMW and Toyota. American Ports are operated by a British firm. A German telecom provider provides landline and cellular service to Americans.

There's nothing wrong with that, and this nationalist "Venezuelan Money" stuff is bullshit. There's no such thing as money that's specifically reserved for Venezuelans, just as there's no such thing as money or jobs that are specifically reserved for Americans, Germans, Chinese or Italians.

An international services market is something that should be developed, and Mr. Chavez is just a run of the mill nationalist

It's very comparable to owing and not renting your flat... on the long term, not having to pay the monthly fee is what is making sense. If you have nothing at start, you can't buy and are forced to rent. But Venezuela HAS money. So better buy (take control of their own services) than rent (rely upon foreing investors).
The analogy makes no economic sense whatsoever.




That's not dubious at all. RCTV support to the coup was absolutely obvious, they didn't even try to hide it.
What did you expect them to do?

During the general strike Chavez ordered them shut down because they were supporting the strikiers, and when the coup came to power, the coup leaders reversed that decision. What do you expect them to do? Support the guy who ordered them shut down?



That's just not true. What he doesn't like in their political is their support to the coup, nothing more.
If it had anything to do with the coup, it would have been done years ago, not in December of 2006, and there would have been a proper court proceeding. Not executive decree. What Mr. Chavez doesn't like is their continued opposition to his increasingly autocratic rule, and you've been blinded by his rhetoric to this fact.

Chavez is the best thing that could happend to Venezuela. It's totally right to nationalize companies so the nation could benefit from them. I'm liking him more and more for every day that goes.

He'll keep the oil flowing to the bitter end however.

How else will he ensure the loyalty of his guards, unless he has a lot of money?

Chavez is the best thing that could happend to Venezuela. It's totally right to nationalize companies so the nation could benefit from them. I'm liking him more and more for every day that goes.

It's stuff like this that makes it so I have to down a few beers before venturing into NSG... :rolleyes:

I can see that some people like our friend in Paris lack any knowledge on economic issues.

Venezuela is ****ed right now. They are buying Russian Oil because they can't meet their own OPEC production quotas.

It seems to me that our French friend who is posting in this thread is either A) clueless in economics or B) hates the US so much he's willing to get on his knees for any tin pot dictator who doesn't like the US.

Welcome to the wide world of internationalism and globalization. One of the legs of the Kantian traingle. When we rely on each other economically, that means we're more likely to be nicer to each other. This is one of the secondary reasons that Autarky is a terrible, terrible idea.

The world does not operate according to a simplistic model by a dead philosopher. Reality is far more complicated. That is why many countries do not play nice with countries they depend on economically. The USA relies on oil producing nations for energy resources. Are you going to tell me that the USA has a history of helping Arab countries and Venezuela? That theory is in conflict with reality.

And Venezuela is not becoming an autarky. Choosing to nationalise key industries is an issue of self-protection, and is not a blanket policy dominating their entire economy. Many countries nationalise certain sectors while keeping others as liberal as possible. Or do you think the USA should privatise the building and maintenace of its fighter jets to the Japanese? It would be cheaper, but it would be idiotic in terms of national security. All that to say that Chavez is thinking about more than the current fascination with free market economics.

Furthermore, his actions make little economic sense, almost as little as your leftist rantings.

Your free-market ranting is equally ill-thought out.

That's a dubious charge at best

Beyond that, he's revoking their license because he does not like their political message, their opposition to his government, not because of their questionable role in the coup.

Or perhaps he is merely nationalising what had been public property but had been privatised by earlier administrations. This is often done in government because privatisation does not always work.
“Let it be nationalized,” Mr. Chávez said of CANTV. “All that was privatized, let it be nationalized.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/09/world/americas/09venezuela.html?em&ex=1168491600&en=5229248eb65936d3&ei=5087%0A

That's robbery? Last I checked, a firm was providing a service to the Venezuelan people, voluntarily. They did not require anyone to purchase their service, and they were clearly allowed to start their own firm to attempt to provide utilities.

When a foreign country invests in a country the profits leave the host country and end up in the foreign country's economy. This is pretty basic economics. Many liberals and leftists see this as a form of robbery. I agree when the foreign comapnies make it impossible for the host country to ensure reinvestment in the host economy.

That's downright goofy. Even in the United States foreign investment is an important source of income for many people, American autoworkers are employed by Honda, BMW and Toyota. American Ports are operated by a British firm. A German telecom provider provides landline and cellular service to Americans.

And foreign investment will continue to be a part of the Venezuelan economy. Simply not in those areas that the Venezuelan governments feels necessary to control for the welfare of its people.

An international services market is something that should be developed, and Mr. Chavez is just a run of the mill nationalist

Why should it be developed?

The analogy makes no economic sense whatsoever.

I thought it did.


What did you expect them to do?

During the general strike Chavez ordered them shut down because they were supporting the strikiers, and when the coup came to power, the coup leaders reversed that decision. What do you expect them to do? Support the guy who ordered them shut down?

During the strike they were shut down because they kept replaying the scenes of Chavez supporters shooting. This was exacerbating the violence. Any western democracy would do the same. I would have liked it if the people in the media had universally supported the democratic process instead of the coup.


If it had anything to do with the coup, it would have been done years ago, not in December of 2006, and there would have been a proper court proceeding. Not executive decree. What Mr. Chavez doesn't like is their continued opposition to his increasingly autocratic rule, and you've been blinded by his rhetoric to this fact

This has nothing to do with punishment. He is merely renationalising what a previous administration had privatised.

And Venezuela is not becoming an autarky.

Actually, Chavez is requesting the ability to legislate by executive decree.

Last I heard, that was called dictatorship.

Actually, Chavez is requesting the ability to legislate by executive decree.

Last I heard, that was called dictatorship.

I'm sorry. What does that have to do with autarky?

Awesome. Now, instead of just falling oil prices, the power grid can collapse as well! Maybe we can install some corrupt managers who will loot the system and hide all of the problems in red tape...we all know how well nationalized utilities worked in other Third World nations. Hell, most of them are still suffering from that mess.

This country is going to go down so hard, it's sad. All that oil wealth and it will be lost because of one incompetent leader. Populism doesn't work, kids, and driving off foreign investment doesn't either...it turns you in to something as well off as North Korea.

I'm sorry. What does that have to do with autarky?

I find it interesting on one hand that Chavez is moving to nationalize various industries.

At the same time, he announces that this will be to bring Venezuela into line with the Cuban model of socialism.

Well, that will be an autarky if you ask me. Not yet, but soon.

And, in order to get there, he's requested the right to legislate by executive decree.

So much for socialism. That's a dictatorship.

And, in order to get there, he's requested the right to legislate by executive decree.

So much for socialism. That's a dictatorship.

Surely if he was a dictator, he'd take it, not request it?

Surely if he was a dictator, he'd take it, not request it?

Even Hitler was elected...

And Venezuela is not becoming an autarky. Choosing to nationalise key industries is an issue of self-protection, and is not a blanket policy dominating their entire economy. Many countries nationalise certain sectors while keeping others as liberal as possible. Or do you think the USA should privatise the building and maintenace of its fighter jets to the Japanese? It would be cheaper, but it would be idiotic in terms of national security. All that to say that Chavez is thinking about more than the current fascination with free market economics.

Here's the thing: When countries start nationalizing things, businesses pull out. They're not fans of the government robbing them of assets they legally purchased, and they're not fans of a regime that sticks cronies in the place of qualified managers to run the things they stole. Investment is all about return on capital and manageable risk, and when you remove those two you're going to see investment tank and the economy implode.

Foreign corporations are simply not going to invest in a country where the government takes what it wants by decree...even if they don't want autarky, that's exactly what will happen because investors are going to bail out and fast. And, to make matters worse, when investment bails, your currency starts to collapse and you're left with a nasty inflationary spiral that ruins the economy further. Hell, their bond market is already responding to this...pretty soon, we'll see yet another debt-ridden dictatorship just like the rest of the ones that have impoverished South America in the past.

How else will he ensure the loyalty of his guards, unless he has a lot of money?


http://www.exile.ru/2006-October-06/venezuela_enchilada_of_evil.html

Hehe. :D

Awesome. Now, instead of just falling oil prices, the power grid can collapse as well! Maybe we can install some corrupt managers who will loot the system and hide all of the problems in red tape...we all know how well nationalized utilities worked in other Third World nations. Hell, most of them are still suffering from that mess.

I would like to see a link from a credible source for your claims that nationalisation of key industries inevitably leads to economic collapse.

I find it interesting on one hand that Chavez is moving to nationalize various industries.

At the same time, he announces that this will be to bring Venezuela into line with the Cuban model of socialism.

Well, that will be an autarky if you ask me. Not yet, but soon.

And, in order to get there, he's requested the right to legislate by executive decree.

So much for socialism. That's a dictatorship.

Do you know what autarky means?

Here's the thing: When countries start nationalizing things, businesses pull out. They're not fans of the government robbing them of assets they legally purchased, and they're not fans of a regime that sticks cronies in the place of qualified managers to run the things they stole. Investment is all about return on capital and manageable risk, and when you remove those two you're going to see investment tank and the economy implode.

Foreign corporations are simply not going to invest in a country where the government takes what it wants by decree...even if they don't want autarky, that's exactly what will happen because investors are going to bail out and fast. And, to make matters worse, when investment bails, your currency starts to collapse and you're left with a nasty inflationary spiral that ruins the economy further. Hell, their bond market is already responding to this...pretty soon, we'll see yet another debt-ridden dictatorship just like the rest of the ones that have impoverished South America in the past.

Your theories are great for a country that already has a developed infrastructure, stable democracy, worker's rights, etc. But for most Latin American countries, this model that you propose is simply inapplicable. Venezuela will pay the owners of the nationalised countries whatever they (the investors) claim it is worth. It is not robbery.

Investment is about return amd risk management. In Latin America, risk management often involves shooting labour organisers, indentured servitude, and bloody coups if necessary. I do not feel these things are needed to protect any economic investment. I guess I'm a socialist too.

Yes. This sort of behaviour will scare foreign investors. We already see this effect in the stock market, and I would be an idiot to deny it. But if someone pulls out, does that not create a vacuum? A vacuum that can then be filled by a friendlier investor or by someone local. Also, Chavez has made a lot of effort at currying favour with just these types of entrepeneurs. I think the negative effects will be less dire than predicted.

No surprise that a socialist would seek to legislate by presidential decree.

Also no surprise that the leftie loons are silent when one of their own actually does what they're always accusing President Bush of trying to do.

No wonder socialists are generally despised in the US--when they're not regarded as a political joke, that is.

Do you know what autarky means?
Yes, I do.

Cuba is almost effectively an autarky, if only by dint of sanctions. North Korea is one. The US was almost one (in the distant past).

And even if there weren't sanctions in Cuba, why invest in something that is going to be taken away from you?

No investor would be so fucking stupid.

You have the government nationalize things left and right, and the investors run away - for good.

I have personally crossed the floor on my opinion of Hugo Chavez since he closed down the opposition television networks.

While before I had my fingers crossed that he would offer the people of South America a new, more just society, I now see that he is just one more dictatorial douchebag...

I now see that he is just one more dictatorial douchebag...

Quoted for truth.

Yes, I do.

Cuba is almost effectively an autarky, if only by dint of sanctions. North Korea is one. The US was almost one (in the distant past).

And even if there weren't sanctions in Cuba, why invest in something that is going to be taken away from you?

No investor would be so fucking stupid.

You have the government nationalize things left and right, and the investors run away - for good.

How odd. Here I was thinking that the only country that was not trading overtly with Cuba is the USA. The rest of the world does so at their discretion. Obviously, Cuba is not an autarky.

Here is the wiki article. Cuba, intelligently enough, is not mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

Obviously you do not know what it means.

How odd. Here I was thinking that the only country that was not trading overtly with Cuba is the USA. The rest of the world does so at their discretion. Obviously, Cuba is not an autarky.

Here is the wiki article. Cuba, intelligently enough, is not mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

Obviously you do not know what it means.

Obviously, it is a limited autarky. Cuba doesn't have what I would consider to be a rollicking trade market.

Their sugar market, for instance, is effectively dead. Killed by investors investing in sugar farms elsewhere.

You can arrive at autarky by having your investors run away. Your country is left to try to fend for itself without any outside assistance.

I have personally crossed the floor on my opinion of Hugo Chavez since he closed down the opposition television networks.

While before I had my fingers crossed that he would offer the people of South America a new, more just society, I now see that he is just one more dictatorial douchebag...

In my opinion, Chavez is trying to tread a line between journalistic freedom and prventing further coups. Note the two sentences that follow from a recent BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6215815.stm
Many media outlets, including RCTV, supported a bungled coup in 2002 and a devastating general strike in 2003 that failed to unseat the president.

The press freedom campaign group, Reporters Without Borders, said the proposed move would be a grave violation of freedom of expression in Venezuela.

As armchair politicians, it is easy to judge him one way or the other.

Obviously, it is a limited autarky. Cuba doesn't have what I would consider to be a rollicking trade market.

Their sugar market, for instance, is effectively dead. Killed by investors investing in sugar farms elsewhere.

You can arrive at autarky by having your investors run away. Your country is left to try to fend for itself without any outside assistance.

If you read the wiki article, you will see that autakies are generally imposed by the country itself, not imposed from without. Using the term 'autarky' in regards to Cuba shows that you do not understand the word. What is happening with Cuba is called a blockade, or embargo, depending on how you play with the semantics. It is not an autarky.

If you read the wiki article, you will see that autakies are generally imposed by the country itself, not imposed from without. Using the term 'autarky' in regards to Cuba shows that you do not understand the word. What is happening with Cuba is called a blockade, or embargo, depending on how you play with the semantics. It is not an autarky.

Even if there is no official embargo, enacting policies that cause investors to flee en masse leads to autarky, whether you want it or not.

Viva Hugo! Viva la Revolucion!!!

I now see that he is just one more dictatorial douchebag...

Well, the people of Venezuela disagrees with you and have expressed this by giving him the pover after democratical elections approved by international observers. So it doesn't really matter what you or other people on this board think because it's up to the Venezuealean people to deside who they want in power and they've choosen Chavez, once again.

I'm not sayig anything about his politics so don't start a discussion with me over them. I'm just saying, you can agree or disagree with them if you wan't but it's not up to you to deside who the Venezuealians should elect.

If this is what the Venezuelan people want, then power to them.

That's not dubious at all. RCTV support to the coup was absolutely obvious, they didn't even try to hide it.

That's just not true. What he doesn't like in their political is their support to the coup, nothing more.
Even so, shutting them down is an affront to free speech.

Preaching against the government shouldn't have any impact if the government is well liked.

Even so, shutting them down is an affront to free speech.

Preaching against the government shouldn't have any impact if the government is well liked.
I think the media can have much more of an impact than that, but nevertheless TV stations should not be shut down like that.

any tin pot dictator

how is Chavez that? :rolleyes:

all this because he does things a bit differently for the benefit of his support base, the poor of venezeula.

It seems to me that our French friend who is posting in this thread is either A) clueless in economics or B) hates the US so much he's willing to get on his knees for any tin pot dictator who doesn't like the US.

there seem to be so many that are thrilled when someone defies the US or its leaders.

Thats got to be such a desperate position to be in.

there seem to be so many that are thrilled when someone defies the US or its leaders.

Thats got to be such a desperate position to be in.

Everyone likes to see someone stand up to a bully.

how is Chavez that? :rolleyes:

Because the western definition of a dictator is "A leader of a country that opposes american interests in the world".

Everyone likes to see someone stand up to a bully.

one person's "bully" is another's hero, though.

one person's "bully" is another's hero, though.

Sure, it's all about perspective. But right now, perspective is decidedly on the side of 'bully', not hero.

Actually, Chavez is requesting the ability to legislate by executive decree.

Last I heard, that was called dictatorship.

One, two, three...

SIGNING STATEMENTS!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Controversy_over_George_W._Bush.27s_use_of_signing_statements

Pick. Either Chavez is NOT a dictator or Bush is one too.

Everyone likes to see someone stand up to a bully.

Two millenia ago, as Athens rose to the height of her power as a regional hegemon, several of the smaller Greek city-states began to take note of the failures of the Athenians, and an amount of corruption in the administration of the treasury.

These city-states came to the conclusion that Athens was no longer fit to play a leading role amongst the Greek city-states, so they aligned themselves with Athens most powerful adversary, Sparta. Over the course of a violent and bloody war, the Athenians were defeated and Sparta rose to a position of dominance amongst the Greek states, the role Athens had played previously. The only difference being that now that the smaller city-states were free of the relatively benign rule of Athens, they found themselves under the military boot of authoritarian Sparta, a much worse situation than what was experienced under Athenian leadership.

What does this have to do with the perception of the United States as a bully? I'll tell you. The same perception that was so dangerous to Athens, a perception that is borne of a classical security dilemma, is increasingly hindering the United States. I would advise those who would seek to decrease the relative power of the US compared to another country to choose their allies wisely, lest they find their friends to be Spartans.

Even so, shutting them down is an affront to free speech.

Preaching against the government shouldn't have any impact if the government is well liked.

What if the press started publicising miltary secrets, or spreading disinformation? What if the press was controlled by a monopoly intent on seizing power?

Should the freedom of the press then be limited?

Now, these things are not occuring in Venezuela, as far as I know. But it does illustrate the idea that the freedom of the press can sometimes be limited for other concerns.

So, while I agree with you that it is an affront to free speech, we are talking about a single TV station that actively engaged in an illegal coup against a democratically elected president. If this happened in a western democracy, do you think they would not have their license renewal threatened?

Sure, it's all about perspective. But right now, perspective is decidedly on the side of 'bully', not hero.

Once again, this is what one would expect from a security dilemma.

Two millenia ago, ... lest they find their friends to be Spartans.

Right. Because the entirety of Latin America is going to support Chavez in a long and bloody war against the USA, with authoritarian Venezuela left in command.

I do not think this is a useful analogy.

What does this have to do with the perception of the United States as a bully? I'll tell you. The same perception that was so dangerous to Athens, a perception that is borne of a classical security dilemma, is increasingly hindering the United States. I would advise those who would seek to decrease the relative power of the US compared to another country to choose their allies wisely, lest they find their friends to be Spartans.

You can go with the 'devil you know' attitude, or you can say, 'hey, why don't we try changing things altogether'. Sure, it's bound to fall short of your ultimate goals, but it's better than what we have. It'd be a terrible thing if we were to truly believe there can be no massive improvements made on the model the US is pushing.

Sure, it's all about perspective. But right now, perspective is decidedly on the side of 'bully', not hero.

For you,perhaps. And more of a vocal minority.

And-even that is purely opinion.

There is a vast,silent majority that keeps it going and doesnt feel the need to be heard.

Right. Because the entirety of Latin America is going to support Chavez in a long and bloody war against the USA, with authoritarian Venezuela left in command.

I do not think this is a useful analogy.

Then you don't understand what I was saying.

Don't be a nitwit, what I was advising is that you choose your friends carefully.

Then you don't understand what I was saying.

Don't be a nitwit, what I was advising is that you choose your friends carefully.

Then please clarify for this nitwit exactly what you were trying to say with your analogy.

I don't see your point.

For you,perhaps. And more of a vocal minority.

And-even that is purely opinion.

There is a vast,silent majority that keeps it going and doesnt feel the need to be heard.

What are you talking about? Are you only looking at the US and Canada? Travel, and listen to the majority of the world and how they think of the US. It's usually not totally black and white...it's , "yes, they are stinking bastards, but that Paris Hilton, what a hot slut, yum!"

People around the world, a large, vocal MAJORITY are definately not looking at the US as a hero.

Then please clarify for this nitwit exactly what you were trying to say with your analogy.

I don't see your point.

When choosing the person who is going to stand up to your big, mean bully, choose wisely, otherwise your old friend might rapidly become your new bully.

Choose someone who's better behaved than the US, not worse, like Mr. Chavez, Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il. Otherwise you're going to sully your reputation into that of a lover of dictators.

When choosing the person who is going to stand up to your big, mean bully, choose wisely, otherwise your old friend might rapidly become your new bully.

Indeed. I cringe sometimes with the rhetoric I see online from some people.

The U.S. is by no means perfect, but there are some who seem to think the world would have been better off if the USSR had won the Cold War (the easy way or the hard way), or if China decided to start play hardball with it's neighbors.

They would change their tune mighty quick, I think, if they had to live in the world they imagine would better than reality.

The U.S. is not perfect, hell, we're not even really "good"...but we're a damn sight better than the other options out there right now.

Give India 50 years, give China 100, and give Russia about 150...then the rest of the world can start to think about who is offering the better deal. Until then, you're just blowing hot air, cause we're the best friend you have or could hope to have...like it or not.

Chavez sounds less like a world leader, and more like a 12 year old who got insulted on the playground.

Your thoughts?

QFT.

I wonder just what the need is for more presidential power...legislation by executive decree?? I thought he was popularly elected...shouldn't he have the support he needs to do what he likes?

He does. The legislature has no opposition members; they boycotted the last election. Why should he bother?

Honestly... how many elections does this guy have to win before people stop pretending he's some kind of anti-democrat?

He's also doing a good job of alienating foreign investment, from the looks of things.

Blah, blah, blah... people have been complaining about how Chávez is going to ruin Venezuela's economy ever since he was elected. He hasn't. It isn't going to happen.

Lastly, what's with the blast on Insulza? If the U.S. did the same thing to Fox News under a Democratic President, you can bet we'd hear ALL about it.

Fox News has never supported a coup against a legitimately-elected leader.

Blah, blah, blah... people have been complaining about how Chávez is going to ruin Venezuela's economy ever since he was elected. He hasn't. It isn't going to happen.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

But unless Venezuela diversifies its economy, it's going to be in a hell of a lot of trouble once oil prices go down. Look at Nigeria in the 1970s, for example, before and after the oil boom.

We need to do two things, IMO:

1) Buy their oil

2) Leave them alone

But unless Venezuela diversifies its economy, it's going to be in a hell of a lot of trouble once oil prices go down. Look at Nigeria in the 1970s, for example, before and after the oil boom.

Indeed...Iran has the same problem.

In fact, I wonder to what extent U.S. policy wishes to keep energy prices HIGH in order to prevent economic problems in those two countries. Keeping them relatively stable (even if they are opposed to U.S. interests) instead of chaotic due to economic collapse.

U.S. control of oil in Iraq, and general U.S. policy in the Middle East, may be part of that policy...though destabilizing one nation to potentially stabilize two others strikes me as pretty stupid. Selfish too, even if the eventual goal is a positive one.

Meh...I think I'm giving my government too much credit! :p

Indeed...Iran has the same problem.

Most Middle Eastern countries do. Once they run out, they're screwed.

Most Middle Eastern countries do. Once they run out, they're screwed.

Very true, although Dubai seems to be setting themselves up for that eventuality. Everyone else is fucked.

While before I had my fingers crossed that he would offer the people of South America a new, more just society, I now see that he is just one more dictatorial douchebag...


He's always been one.