NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/02/bloomberg/bxbux.php

Looks like he's setting prices without regard to whether or not people can produce at those prices. Gee, that sounds familiar. I, for one, had thought he could keep that up by spending the foreign reserves he's gotten permission to spend, as well as the oil money, but this article seems to say that's not going to work for very long.

The Venezuelan economy, under the direction of President Hugo Chávez, is starting to unravel in the currency market.

While Venezuela earns record proceeds from oil exports, consumers face shortages of meat, flour and cooking oil. Annual inflation has risen to 16 percent, the highest in Latin America, as Chávez tripled government spending in four years.

Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips are pulling out after Chávez demanded that they cede control of joint venture projects.

The bolivar has tumbled 30 percent this year to 4,850 per dollar on the black market, the only place it trades freely because of government controls on foreign exchange. That compares with the official rate of 2,150 per dollar set in 2005. Chávez may have to devalue the bolivar to reduce the gap and increase oil proceeds, which make up half the government's revenue.

"This has been the worst-managed oil boom in Venezuela's history," said Ricardo Hausmann, a former government planning minister who now teaches economics at Harvard University. "A devaluation is a foregone conclusion. The only question is when."

JPMorgan Chase and Merrill Lynch expect Chávez to devalue the bolivar 14 percent in the first quarter of 2008 after he introduces a new currency Jan. 1 that will lop three zeros off all denominations.

The new currency, to be called the strong bolivar, will have an exchange rate of 2.15 per dollar, the equivalent of the current rate, Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas said last week. Analysts forecast that the official rate will decline 13 percent by the end of 2008, according to a Bloomberg survey.

"We're not going to devalue, no matter how much they pressure us," Cabezas said last week. "The so-called parallel market doesn't dictate our fiscal, exchange or monetary policies."

Chávez, an ally of President Fidel Castro of Cuba, weakened the currency 11 percent in 2005. Chávez imposed restrictions on foreign exchange in 2003 to halt the capital flight that has driven down the bolivar more than 70 percent since he took office in 1999.

A devaluation would give the government more bolivars from its oil export tax receipts, helping fund Chávez's policies to provide free health care, housing and discounted food to millions of Venezuelans. The government says social programs helped cut the poverty rate to 34 percent in the first half of 2006 from 49 percent eight years earlier.

Oil, which has risen 155 percent in the past five years, accounts for about 90 percent of Venezuela's exports.

Wait - it says that devaluation would HELP fund Chavez's policies - yet he's NOT going to do it....

Ah well. It's apparently only a matter of time now, before he's in the same boat as Mugabe - might take a bit longer, if the oil keeps him afloat. But the end result appears to be the same.

*prepares to feel vindicated*

No, he studied at the University Of Not Knowing Much About Economics, But Happening To Imagine That You Do.

Robert Mugabe just happened to study there, too.

If his policies are so obviously not working, and in fact making things worse, then why do people continue to rave about him and support him??? I'm thinking more about American's, since Chavez could keep his own people at bay for a while with the military.

Sean Penn goes down a lot to see Chavez. Why doesn't he write about things like this instead of how Chavez is "standing up" to GW Bush?

He hasn't embarked on any policy anywhere near as disastrous as Mugabe's land reform.

Unless he's really stupid....

Wait?! A socialist has come to power in a South American country, riden in on populism and preaching socialism and economic equality, only to become some tyrant authoritarian who further destroys the country he came into, and further opresses the people he was so much "for"!?!?

No way.:rolleyes:

Another day in Latin America.

If his policies are so obviously not working, and in fact making things worse, then why do people continue to rave about him and support him??? I'm thinking more about American's, since Chavez could keep his own people at bay for a while with the military.

Sean Penn goes down a lot to see Chavez. Why doesn't he write about things like this instead of how Chavez is "standing up" to GW Bush?

They rant and rave about Castro to. They used to rant and rave about how great Idi Amin was to, going up against the evil tyrannical British Empire which was always trying to destroy anything good.

Wait?! A socialist has come to power in a South American country, riden in on populism and preaching socialism and economic equality, only to become some tyrant authoritarian who further destroys the country he came into, and further opresses the people he was so much "for"!?!?

No way.:rolleyes:

Another day in Latin America.
See also "a capitalist has come to power in a South American country, forced in by the US and preaching growth and economic freedom, etc. etc."

See also "a capitalist has come to power in a South American country, forced in by the US and preaching growth and economic freedom, etc. etc."

See also almost every socialist country in the third world.

See also "a capitalist has come to power in a South American country, forced in by the US and preaching growth and economic freedom, etc. etc."
Except that capitalist policies have HELPED Latin-American countries more so than hurt....which is more than I can say about Socialist policies. When has socialism made a South American country great? For instance, countries like Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil have all been helped, economically, by capitalist policies.

See also almost every country in the third world.
Fixed.

Except that capitalist policies have HELPED Latin-American countries more so than hurt....which is more than I can say about Socialist policies.
Cuba and Bolivia much?
When has socialism made a South American country great?
Never really gets the chance to take off, because socialist leaders are usually murdered by US backed 'freedom fighters' fairly swiftly.
For instance, countries like Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil have all been helped, economically, by capitalist policies.
Chile - erm no, capitalism gave Chile rife corruption, a brutal police force and economic growth in the 1980s of slow proportions for South America.

Costa Rica - Crime-ridden shithole.

Panama - Crime-ridden extremely poor shithole with no sovereignty.

Brazil - I lol'd.

Fixed.

Nope not really it was better the way it was before.

Cuba and Bolivia much?


Cuba? :D
If taking away political freedoms and rights is a great thing than you are correct sir.

Cuba? :D
If taking away political freedoms and rights is a great thing than you are correct sir.

And the economy is doing so well too.:D

And the economy is doing so well too.:D

And the people seem to always want to stay there, just like on the Eastern German side of the Berlin wall. :D

And the people seem to always want to stay there, just like on the Eastern German side of the Berlin wall. :D

They can always fall back on exporting 35 year old pitchers to the Yankees. :p

Yeah, nothing solves inflation better than lopping off a few zeros and worsening the problems that caused the collapse in the first place. A worthless currency that can't even be freely exchanged is a fast track to total economic failure.

Generally, it's a bad sign when your country's currency is less valuable than Monopoly money and getting worse by the day...as many Soviet citizens said in the country's last days, "they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work". Productivity, living standards, and growth all tank as the currency becomes more and more useless, eventually degenerating in to a shortage-economy form of barter.

If this is what Chavez's policies are like with a flood of hard currency from oil profits, I can only wonder what will happen when prices or demand fall...

They can always fall back on exporting 35 year old pitchers to the Yankees. :p

OR importing 1960s cheap broken down cars.

Cuba and Bolivia much?
Cuba sucks....Communism turned the gem of the carribbean or whatever they called it into a total shithole that people are risking their lives swimming across the ocean trying to flee. Yeah, it's great. Bolivia is probably the most backwards country in South America, and is almost all a bunch of Indians living as poor, uneducated, illiterate farmers, who voted in a populast praising the international drug trade.
Never really gets the chance to take off, because socialist leaders are usually murdered by US backed 'freedom fighters' fairly swiftly.
Or because they destroy the countries they "lead" before "true socialism" sets in.
Chile - erm no, capitalism gave Chile rife corruption, a brutal police force and economic growth in the 1980s of slow proportions for South America.
Actually, no. Chile is the best country in South America today.
Costa Rica - Crime-ridden shithole.
Could be said of all of Latin-America, nice try. Except this crime ridden shithole has a nice growing economic sector.
Panama - Crime-ridden extremely poor shithole with no sovereignty.
Same as above with Costa Rica.
Brazil - I lol'd.
Keep "loling", but Brasil has shown economic improvments thanks to capitalistic implementations. Of course it's got tons of problems that don't even need to be addressed, but hey, we are talking about Latin-America here.

Chile is the best country in South America today.I call bull shit

I call bull shit

Do you have facts to back up your claim Atlantean?

I call bull shit
Is that the only thing you can do to my post? Well, better than Yootopia, who fleed at the sight of my post. Anyway, if Chile is not the best country in South America, which is?

Is that the only thing you can do to my post? Well, better than Yootopia, who fleed at the sight of my post. Anyway, if Chile is not the best country in South America, which is?

Most definitly Cuba, you can tell cause of the thousands of people that have fled the communist regime.

Chile is 38th on the HDI while Argentina is ranked slightly higher in 36th. Chile has a GDP PPP per capita of $12,983 while Argentina's is $17,062. Chile's life expectancy is 78.6 while Argentina's is 75.3.

For the record Cuba is slightly number 50 on the HDI, with a GDP PPP per capita $3,900 and a life expectancy of 78.3.

Make of that what you will.

Cuba? :D
If taking away political freedoms and rights is a great thing than you are correct sir.

You mean, like the right to travel to and trade with Cuba?

Now... who did that again?

Chile is 38th on the HDI while Argentina is ranked slightly higher in 36th. Chile has a GDP PPP per capita of $12,983 while Argentina's is $17,062. Chile's life expectancy is 78.6 while Argentina's is 75.3.

For the record Cuba is slightly number 50 on the HDI, with a GDP PPP per capita $3,900 and a life expectancy of 78.3.

Make of that what you will.

WHoO HOO!! .3 a head from the place with the GREAT socialised medicine.

If his policies are so obviously not working, and in fact making things worse, then why do people continue to rave about him and support him??? I'm thinking more about American's, since Chavez could keep his own people at bay for a while with the military.

Sean Penn goes down a lot to see Chavez. Why doesn't he write about things like this instead of how Chavez is "standing up" to GW Bush?

Because, to the radical American (and international) left, the only thing that counts is "standing up" to GW Bush and the US.

How else can you explain the left's love of Chavez, Castro and the insurgents in Iraq?

WHoO HOO!! .3 a head from the place with the GREAT socialised medicine.

Percentage of unemployed:
Chile: 7.8%
Cuba: 1.9%

Political rights and civil liberties on a scale of one (free) to seven (not free):
Chile: PR - 1, CL - 1
Cuba: PR - 7, PR - 7

Press freedom (best to worst of 168 countries):
Chile: 46
Cuba: 165

Meh, when he bans independent verification of elections, and seizes land based on the skin colour of the owners, then sure, but until he actually, y'know, demonstrates any behaviour as bad as Mugabe, then... well, you get the idea.

You mean, like the right to travel to and trade with Cuba?

Now... who did that again?

Cuba, through its continuous refusal to give its citizens even the most basic human rights and freedoms. The US has no obligation to allow travel and trade that will help prop up such a regime.

Do you shed tears over the fact that Americans can't go vacationing in Pyongyang, either?

Cuba, through its continuous refusal to give its citizens even the most basic human rights and freedoms. The US has no obligation to allow travel and trade that will help prop up such a regime.

Do you shed tears over the fact that Americans can't go vacationing in Pyongyang, either?

China?

No, he studied at the University Of Not Knowing Much About Economics, But Happening To Imagine That You Do.

Robert Mugabe just happened to study there, too.
Ah, yes, good ol' UONKMAEBHTITYD. I want to see the school cheer for that university.

the only thing that counts is "standing up" to GW Bush and the US.

How many leftists support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

How else can you explain the left's love of Chavez, Castro

Among other things, both Chávez and Castro have pursued more or less left-wing economic policies... and they certainly have the rhetoric down.

Though to say that the Left generally speaking, even the radical Left, "love[s]" Chávez and Castro is a gross exaggeration... indeed, the really radical left has always been skeptical of the former and divided about the latter.

and the insurgents in Iraq?

This is not "love"... at most it is critical support, and usually not even that.

Cuba, through its continuous refusal to give its citizens even the most basic human rights and freedoms. The US has no obligation to allow travel and trade that will help prop up such a regime.

Do you shed tears over the fact that Americans can't go vacationing in Pyongyang, either?

Wow, you mean they launched an embargo against themselves?

I'm impressed, that takes balls.

Wow, you mean they launched an embargo against themselves?

I'm impressed, that takes balls.

Essentially yeah they did, they completely abolished free travel. Don't give that bullshit about the U.S. Embargo, the U.S. isn't the only person to trade with in the world and apparently, "since it has lost prestige", its opinion is weighed at nothing.

China?

(Shrugs) Great powers get treated differently than small powers. The fact that we can't realistically shut China out of the international order shouldn't stop us from doing so to Cuba and North Korea.

How many leftists support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

How many leftists support the American position when it comes to dealing with him?

Essentially yeah they did, they completely abolished free travel. Don't give that bullshit about the U.S. Embargo, the U.S. isn't the only person to trade with in the world and apparently, "since it has lost prestige", its opinion is weighed at nothing.

Hrm. Well, that's fair enough, kinda... I've never claimed to be an expert on politics, especially in the US.

Just clear one thing up for me; if someone from the US wants to go to Cuba, who stops them?

How many leftists support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?



Among other things, both Chávez and Castro have pursued more or less left-wing economic policies... and they certainly have the rhetoric down.

Though to say that the Left generally speaking, even the radical Left, "love[s]" Chávez and Castro is a gross exaggeration... indeed, the really radical left has always been skeptical of the former and divided about the latter.



This is not "love"... at most it is critical support, and usually not even that.

Why are there so many people claiming to come from a liberal perspective to defend both Chavez and Castro and why haven't they raised their doubts about these leaders?

(Shrugs) Great powers get treated differently than small powers. The fact that we can't realistically shut China out of the international order shouldn't stop us from doing so to Cuba and North Korea.

Oh, okay. So America has an obligation to avoid trade with a country that routinely violates human rights only if that means the US won't miss out on a good trading partner as well.

Cuba, through its continuous refusal to give its citizens even the most basic human rights and freedoms. The US has no obligation to allow travel and trade that will help prop up such a regime.

Do you shed tears over the fact that Americans can't go vacationing in Pyongyang, either?

Sort of like Augusto Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Fulgencio Batista, The Somoza family, the House of Saud and Saddam Hussein??

Castro and Chavez are harmless. They talk big but they never act on their word. It's the American government who put the wrong message into people's heads about Castro.

to defend both Chavez and Castro

I don't know... maybe because we think some of the criticisms of them are unjustified.

For instance, while I think Chávez's price controls are stupid and his nationalizations a bit reckless (that FDI statistic is worrisome, to say the least), I have no problem with his funding of health care and education to the poor, or his rejection of free-market policies broadly.

and why haven't they raised their doubts about these leaders?

We do.

Sorry if you aren't listening.

Oh, okay. So America has an obligation to avoid trade with a country that routinely violates human rights only if that means the US won't miss out on a good trading partner as well.

No, it means different situations call for different solutions. We can pretty effectively isolate North Korea and (to a lesser extent) Cuba.

China, on the other hand, is a great power that we simply are unable to lock out of the club of respectable nations. Trying to do so would just lead to a dangerous increase in tensions with a nuclear power of 1.2 billion people.

So, we're stuck having to engage with China and trying to get them to liberalize in exchange for letting them trade with us.

Perfect solution? No, but we don't live in a perfect world. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore more direct ways of dealing with Cuba and North Korea just because those methods aren't available in our relations with China.

We have good reason to not deal with Castro. He was on the phone begging the USSR to launch their nukes in October 1962.

Maybe that gives the United States good reason to not like Castro.

It doesn't give the US good reason not to deal with him... and certainly doesn't give it good reason not to trade with Cuba.

(Shrugs) Great powers get treated differently than small powers. The fact that we can't realistically shut China out of the international order shouldn't stop us from doing so to Cuba and North Korea.

Yeah, and the fact that North America's economy depends heavily on China isn't a factor at all.

Castro and Chavez are harmless. They talk big but they never act on their word. It's the American government who put the wrong message into people's heads about Castro.

We have good reason to not deal with Castro. He was on the phone begging the USSR to launch their nukes in October 1962. If you don't believe me, go rent the CNN mini-series on the Cold War. They interview him and he says it in his own words.

No, it means different situations call for different solutions. We can pretty effectively isolate North Korea and (to a lesser extent) Cuba.

China, on the other hand, is a great power that we simply are unable to lock out of the club of respectable nations. Trying to do so would just lead to a dangerous increase in tensions with a nuclear power of 1.2 billion people.

So, we're stuck having to engage with China and trying to get them to liberalize in exchange for letting them trade with us.

Perfect solution? No, but we don't live in a perfect world. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore more direct ways of dealing with Cuba and North Korea just because those methods aren't available in our relations with China.

Agreed, but it also shouldn't invalidate the whole trade-leads-to-liberalisation things as far as Cuba are concerned. Regardless, all it is doing is hurting Cubans; everyone else trades with them.

North Korea is a bit of a different case obviously. I'm pretty happy with how well diplomacy seems to be working though- disarming nuclear facilities and all. I read recently that one NK diplomat said that NK was no longer a member of the axis of evil. The US denies this, but it shows some signal of progress.

Sort of like Augusto Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, Suharto, Fulgencio Batista, The Somoza family, the House of Saud and Saddam Hussein??

Pinochet replaced Allende, who promised to impose a Cuban-style dictatorship on Chile.

The alternative to the Shah was not a bunch of Jeffersonian liberals- it was Islamic fundamentalism, same with Suharto.

Batista, though imperfect, was at least under the influence of the US. Over time, if he wanted to remain in power, he would have had to impose democratic reforms or lose American support. Again, the alternative to him was far worse.

I loathe the House of Saud as much as you probably do, but what's the alternative? Our only realistic approach at this point is to gradually prod them towards democratic reform.

And Saddam Hussein? We only supported him because the alternative, Iranian hegemony over the world's oil supply, was so frightening.

Cuba is different. The alternative to the current regime isn't some whackjob Islamic fundamentalist government or a Communist regime looking to export revolution. Rather, if we can get rid of the current government, whatever replaces it will be an improvement for the Cuban people.

Agreed, but it also shouldn't invalidate the whole trade-leads-to-liberalisation things as far as Cuba are concerned. Regardless, all it is doing is hurting Cubans; everyone else trades with them.

No, but if we have more direct ways to push a country to liberalize, why not do so? The point of the embargo is to hurt Cubans to the point where they'll get rid of their government.

Pinochet replaced Allende, who promised to impose a Cuban-style dictatorship on Chile.

The alternative to the Shah was not a bunch of Jeffersonian liberals- it was Islamic fundamentalism, same with Suharto.

Batista, though imperfect, was at least under the influence of the US. Over time, if he wanted to remain in power, he would have had to impose democratic reforms or lose American support. Again, the alternative to him was far worse.

I loathe the House of Saud as much as you probably do, but what's the alternative? Our only realistic approach at this point is to gradually prod them towards democratic reform.

And Saddam Hussein? We only supported him because the alternative, Iranian hegemony over the world's oil supply, was so frightening.

Cuba is different. The alternative to the current regime isn't some whackjob Islamic fundamentalist government or a Communist regime looking to export revolution. Rather, if we can get rid of the current government, whatever replaces it will be an improvement for the Cuban people.

That seems like a good enough segway to ask what will happen when Castro finally buys the farm. Assuming his brother takes over permanently, will he open up Cuba? How will the US react?

Rather, if we can get rid of the current government, whatever replaces it will be an improvement for the Cuban people.

"Whatever"? Not at all.

It depends very much on how it is done and who is given power.

No, but if we have more direct ways to push a country to liberalize, why not do so? The point of the embargo is to hurt Cubans to the point where they'll get rid of their government.

Mate, the embargo has been in place since 1962, and pretty much every other country now trades with Cuba. Do you really think it is has a chance of working now, 45 years later? "Isolating" them hasn't worked so the US should try the alternative.

Pinochet replaced Allende, who promised to impose a Cuban-style dictatorship on Chile.

Now hold on a moment. Don't you ever tire of calling people you disagree with dictators?

The alternative to the Shah was not a bunch of Jeffersonian liberals- it was Islamic fundamentalism, same with Suharto.

The alternative to the Shah was a democratically elected leader. But we can't support democratically elected leaders when they make choices we disagree with, right?

I loathe the House of Saud as much as you probably do, but what's the alternative? Our only realistic approach at this point is to gradually prod them towards democratic reform.

Because the USA is doing a great job in Arabia. I mean, they're promoting democratic reform left and right! Wait, no. They're doing nothing. I'm sure the fact that Arabia is an oil-supplying ally to the USA isn't a factor in this.

And Saddam Hussein? We only supported him because the alternative, Iranian hegemony over the world's oil supply, was so frightening.

No, because Saddam agreed to comply with the USA in exchange for them saving his ass from a war he started.

Cuba is different. The alternative to the current regime isn't some whackjob Islamic fundamentalist government or a Communist regime looking to export revolution. Rather, if we can get rid of the current government, whatever replaces it will be an improvement for the Cuban people.

The alternative to the current Cuban regime is one that caters to the USA. Whether or not it's better for the Cubans is irrelevant; the US has shown it doesn't care about other countries' people time and time again.

That seems like a good enough segue to ask what will happen when Castro finally buys the farm. Assuming his brother takes over permanently, will he open up Cuba? How will the US react?

Probably not, as he seems to have no overwhelming need to.

And the US will probably do nothing until they install a dictator they like.

Percentage of unemployed:
Chile: 7.8%
Cuba: 1.9%

And they've only got a rate that low thanks to make-work programs...

I loathe the House of Saud as much as you probably do, but what's the alternative? Our only realistic approach at this point is to gradually prod them towards democratic reform.

I agree. The main problem is that democracy in Saudi Arabia runs the risk of having a popularly elected fundamentalist or other threat in power, as well as the instability that accompanies young democracies in nations without a history of that kind of government.

The Saudis produce a huge portion of the world's finest oil, and they're the main "safe" supplier to the US right now. The only other alternative on the scale of Saudi Arabia is Russia, and frankly, they're a lot bigger threat to us given their close ties to China and involvement in Iran. The Saudis and Nigerians are the main suppliers to the US and its allies, and in the context of the current resource scramble we need to keep them in our sphere of influence.

If that means tolerating the House of Saud, so be it; the only chance the country has of ever making a move towards democracy is via the US and its allies...there's no chance in hell the Chinese will ever do such a thing.

Chile - erm no, capitalism gave Chile rife corruption, a brutal police force and economic growth in the 1980s of slow proportions for South America.


I would advise you check out GDP growth figures for Cuba, specifically between 1959 and 1999, when economic growth made for a rough doubling of the size of the Cuban economy. Think about that. Countless billions of Soviet Rubles dumped into Cuba (at a loss!), and at the same time even the most impoverished countries in L.A. saw growth of that much over the space of a decade, in some instances, as little as two years!

The growth of the Cuban economy is not something to tout.

And they've only got a rate that low thanks to make-work programs...

And the occasional mass relocation of its citizens to Florida...now admittedly we Ohioans relocate our citizens to Florida, but that's only once they retire.

Is that the only thing you can do to my post? Well, better than Yootopia, who fleed at the sight of my post. Anyway, if Chile is not the best country in South America, which is?the best in Latin America?
the best Venezuela, the strongest Brazil

The strongest economy?
#1 Brazil
#2 Mexico
#3 Argentina

The strongest Army?
#1 Brazil
#2 Argentina
#3 Mexico

The best quality of life?
#1 Uruguay
#2 Venezuela
#3 Costa Rica

The most improved (last 5 years)
Education
#1 Venezuela
#2 Bolivia

Health
#1 Venezuela
#2 Bolivia

BTW.. I have lived in Latin America most of my life, thats where I learned Spanish.. If your only sources are the WB/IMF/CIA factbook.. then your knowledge is marginal.

Oh god, it's good we have people like Ocean on these forums to combat to pathological lying of the right-wing RO/MTAE nutjob crowd.

Oh god, it's good we have people like Ocean on these forums to combat to pathological lying of the right-wing RO/MTAE nutjob crowd.
LOL ok mr. anti-intellectual communist.

BTW.. I have lived in Latin America most of my life, thats where I learned Spanish.. If your only sources are the WB/IMF/CIA factbook.. then your knowledge is marginal.

Bullshit, your basically saying that any facts against your interpretation are wrong. If we provide any sort of american source your going to say that its biased.

the best in Latin America?
the best Venezuela, the strongest Brazil

The strongest economy?
#1 Brazil
#2 Mexico
#3 Argentina

The strongest Army?
#1 Brazil
#2 Argentina
#3 Mexico

The best quality of life?
#1 Uruguay
#2 Venezuela
#3 Costa Rica

The most improved (last 5 years)
Education
#1 Venezuela
#2 Bolivia

Health
#1 Venezuela
#2 Bolivia

BTW.. I have lived in Latin America most of my life, thats where I learned Spanish.. If your only sources are the WB/IMF/CIA factbook.. then your knowledge is marginal.

I'd like to see some sort of evidence considering we can't really check if you've actually done this.

To say "The best" is to express an opinion. After visiting most of the countries in Latin America, I would say that the economic powerhouse is Brazil, although the goverment needs to improve a lot in their social policies. After seeing a "favela", you realize that not everything in Brazil is a dream, like a visit to Brasilia would make you think.

Chile seems to be a nice place, although right now is passing through an important crisis regarding worker's rights. Colombia and Venezuela seem to be in similar places, both countries improving a lot in some sectors and devolving in others. For me, Bolivia and Ecuador seem to be the worst countries regarding quality of life, as far as I have seen, both countries a bit retarded in economic power and social improvements.

Then again, that's more or less an opinion.

And then again, I prefer ten times to live in Latin America than in the US, I can't see how living in the US would improve my life as it goes. Europe seems to be a nice place to live, as far as I know, although a bit...boring.

..we can't really check if you've actually done this.of course I did stay in South American Countries.. and No, i cannot prove it.


I'd like to see some sort of evidence... evidence? you expect me to send you an AA ticket??
I did not video tape for you :rolleyes: sorry.

The only way for you to realize the situation-on-the-ground is.. to take a plane ticket and go live there for a while, live in the towns.. not inside some US Army base or inside a tourist compound.

Except that capitalist policies have HELPED Latin-American countries more so than hurt....which is more than I can say about Socialist policies. When has socialism made a South American country great? For instance, countries like Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil have all been helped, economically, by capitalist policies.

I think the thing people forget is this; irrespective of whether capitalism or socialism is in play in south america, the same issue is going to exist - massive corruption. Until the corruption is sorted, companies and invididuals aren't going to invest into a country where there is no rule of law. Where their investments aren't protected by an independent judicial system which upholds the law rather than being lacky for corrupt officials.

Look anywhere and the two major issues are; lack of property rights and major corruption. These two hold back growth, not any perceived 'socialism' or lack there of, of capitalism.

"If his policies are so obviously not working, and in fact making things worse, then why do people continue to rave about him and support him??? I'm thinking more about American's, since Chavez could keep his own people at bay for a while with the military."

Good point. It's goddamn scary. Why is there so much support for a managed economy, a dictatorial regime, and an authoritarian government? Why do supporters of such evils exist? They must have vested interest in the collapse of the Venezuelan economy, or the collapse of whatever country they're from.

Albeit, a non-violent collapse of our government, without feudal control by local governments or the take-over of our military (an unlikely scenario, I'll admit) would be pretty fantastic. Just think- no more taxes, no more wars, cheaper prices, no more regulation on drugs, homosexual sex, religion, no more indoctrination of our children in government schools, and finally, some personal responsibility. It's a tall order for a nation of blame passers and scapegoaters, but I'd hazard that we'd figure out how to live again fairly soon.

the best in Latin America?
the best Venezuela, the strongest Brazil

The strongest economy?
#1 Brazil
#2 Mexico
#3 Argentina

The strongest Army?
#1 Brazil
#2 Argentina
#3 Mexico

The best quality of life?
#1 Uruguay
#2 Venezuela
#3 Costa Rica

The most improved (last 5 years)
Education
#1 Venezuela
#2 Bolivia

Health
#1 Venezuela
#2 Bolivia

BTW.. I have lived in Latin America most of my life, thats where I learned Spanish.. If your only sources are the WB/IMF/CIA factbook.. then your knowledge is marginal.

Sourceage?

The HDR seems to come to a different conclusion than whatever your source is, giving Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Brazil and others far better quality of life ratings than Venezuela or Bolivia.

If anything, the HDR shows that the Venezuelan poverty rating was above the Latin American average, but it took a dip beneath the average right around 2001, and has continued its downward trend.

http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/

.

The only way for you to realize the situation-on-the-ground is.. to take a plane ticket and go live there for a while, live in the towns.. not inside some US Army base or inside a tourist compound.

Then I'm afraid you statements hold no water.

Oh god, it's good we have people like Ocean on these forums to combat to pathological lying of the right-wing RO/MTAE nutjob crowd.

Pathological lies? I seem to recall you praising the USSR as a socialist paradise...

Pathological lies? I seem to recall you praising the USSR as a socialist paradise...

he called civil liberties an evil lie.

I'd like to see some sort of evidence considering we can't really check if you've actually done this.

I'd like to see some evidence you're not Pope Bendict XVI.

Sourceage?
I'd say that's OD opinion, not necessarily a factual statement.

As for the thread, I lawled at the mutual fappage as people merely sling mud at Cuba and Venezuela, then high five each other. NSG has sunk quite low in the scales methinks.

I'd like to see some evidence you're not Pope Bendict XVI.


Check my ip address, its not coming from Italy or anywhere Benedict is near.

NSG has sunk quite low in the scales methinks.

Quite a statement to make do you have any sources? :D
Just kidding.

As for the thread, I lawled at the mutual fappage as people merely sling mud at Cuba and Venezuela, then high five each other. NSG has sunk quite low in the scales methinks.

To be fare this has been an on going debate and in other threads there has been mud slinging against the United States and occasional shots at Israel.

To be fare this has been an on going debate and in other threads there has been mud slinging against the United States and occasional shots at Israel.2 way fare. *nods*