NationStates Jolt Archive

So do ya'll think the Venezuelans will vote no against the referendum today which says that the president cannot have more terms? Essentially speaking, if they vote in favor of giving unlimited terms, then we might as well expect Chavez in power for a few decades as the revolutionary Socialist that he is and all. But, if they vote not to this idea, then he will have to give up power in 2012.

I personally would like to see them limit his term. At one point, I kind of admired the man, because I saw what he did with the oil money to build things like the fancy railway and the free health clinics. However, I have come to see the light. The man is a tyrant and his staying in power will only further hurt the people of Venezuela.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7891010.stm
Long queues have formed outside polling stations as Venezuela votes on a proposal that would let President Hugo Chavez seek re-election after 2012.

Mr Chavez has said the constitutional amendment is needed for the future of Venezuela's socialist revolution.

But critics say it is designed to concentrate power in the president's hands for decades to come.

A close results is predicted, but Mr Chavez said "we shall respect the results, whatever they may be".

Many voters in the capital Caracas were woken by fireworks and recordings of military bugles played from loudspeakers on passing trucks, and long queues formed as polling stations opened at 0600 (1030 GMT).

Security across the country is tight, with thousands of troops on duty to ensure the voting passes off peacefully.

Dozens of election observers from international bodies such as the UN and the Organisation of American States are also on hand to verify that the referendum is free and fair.

'Beyond 2013'

Under the present constitution, the president is limited to two six-year terms in office, which means that Hugo Chavez would have to leave the presidency in 2012.

But he says he wants to remain in office until 2021, as long as he can keep winning elections.

A proposal to end presidential term limits was one of a package of 69 constitutional changes narrowly rejected in a 2007 referendum.

The issue of indefinite re-election has divided Venezuelans like almost no other, says the BBC's Will Grant in Caracas.

For a second time in little over a year the question is being decided at the ballot box.

The latest referendum, if passed, would remove the limit on the number of times local governors and state politicians, as well as the president, can stand for office.

Some analysts say this change could make the difference for Mr Chavez, as many local governors are said to back the measure this time around.

But the opposition is adamant that the proposal has been rejected once and should not be back under discussion, he says.


"Ten years is nothing," Mr Chavez said at a news conference on Saturday. "I don't know what they're complaining about."

"On Monday I'll wake up looking beyond 2013, and that will give me more confidence in what we're doing."

Mr Chavez also said that the expulsion on Friday of a Spanish deputy of the European parliament, Luis Herrero, would not affect Venezuela's relationship with Spain.

Mr Herrero had been invited by a Venezuelan opposition party to observe Sunday's referendum and had criticised a decision to keep polls open for two hours longer than usual.

*bump*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7891856.stm

Venezuelans have voted to lift limits on terms in office for elected officials, allowing President Hugo Chavez to stand for re-election.
With 94% of votes counted, 54% backed an end to term limits, a National Electoral Council official said.

Mr Chavez has said he needs to stay in office beyond the end of his second term in 2012 so he can secure what he calls Venezuela's socialist revolution.
Critics say that would concentrate too much power in the presidency.
"The doors of the future are wide open," Mr Chavez shouted from the balcony of the Miraflores presidential palace after the results were announced.

"In 2012 there will be presidential elections, and unless God decides otherwise, unless the people decide otherwise, this soldier is already a candidate."
Crowds of the president's supporters filled in the streets, letting off fireworks, waving red flags and honking car horns.

And from the earlier link Dozens of election observers from international bodies such as the UN and the Organisation of American States are also on hand to verify that the referendum is free and fair.

Democracy ..... in action?

Democracy ..... in action?
Not really. Part of a functioning democracy is a dialogue between the sides that occasionally allows for compromise or at least stays at the level expected of adults.

Chávez doesn't compromise, he polarises, knowingly and intentionally. As such his government has always been a dictatorship of the majority.

At any rate, he is running the country into the ground. It's not a matter of if, but of when. I'm sitting ready to go short on Venezuela.

Chávez doesn't compromise, he polarises, knowingly and intentionally. As such his government has always been a dictatorship of the majority.
To be fair, and bearing in mind I'm not exactly fond of Chavez, he isn't the only, first, or last polarising leader. Bush certainatly was, and intentionally so, although that's not exactly a high standard to hold someone to. Of course, that doesn't make him, or his style of government, particulary desirable.

Part of a functioning democracy is a dialogue between the sides that occasionally allows for compromise or at least stays at the level expected of adults.

... doesn't compromise, he polarises, knowingly and intentionally. As such his government has always been a dictatorship of the majority.


Kind of just described a lot of US administrations :tongue:

cant the CIA shoot Chavez and be done with it

cant the CIA shoot Chavez and be done with it

NOT ALLOWED. The oversight committee would have a field day, and that's assuming you could find an assistant-director in the building who'd authorize it-remember, Chavez has pals in Congress, and they're in the dominant party, and probably positions of authority now.

Not gonna Happen.

For a second time in little over a year the question is being decided at the ballot box.Ah yes, the old "You will have to keep on voting until you get it right" approach that's such a favourite of the European Commission too: Maybe a majority of the Venezuelan electorate simply decided that if Chavez was going to be like that about it then they might as well give up now instead of having to go through the process umpteen more times..

Ah yes, the old "You will have to keep on voting until you get it right" approach that's such a favourite of the European Commission too: Maybe a majority of the Venezuelan electorate simply decided that if Chavez was going to be like that about it then they might as well give up now instead of having to go through the process umpteen more times..

well the first ballot gave the president power to dissolve local governments he didn't like and such.

What do the Venezuelans see in Chavez?

What do the Venezuelans see in Chavez?

the dirt poor farmers who vote for him see oil money.
now that's gone.

the dirt poor farmers who vote for him see oil money.
now that's gone.

Don't forget that many also see him as a military strongman who'll make the state strong and expand their country's regional power.

cant the CIA shoot Chavez and be done with it

The Republicans said (http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/760110e.htm) no (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#2.11).

What do the Venezuelans see in Chavez?

Many poor Venezuelans see him as a voice on the international stage that expresses their needs and wants, which have been ignored until now.

Many poor Venezuelans see him as a voice on the international stage that expresses their needs and wants, which have been ignored until now.

In a fashion that is most analogous to playground insults traded by second graders :)

In a fashion that is most analogous to playground insults traded by second graders :)

I have no idea what you are trying to say, and the few things I can infer from your sentence seem to be somewhat insulting to the Venezuelan poor.

But they're probably used to that too.

All heads of government in Australia and the United Kingdom can stand for re-election indefinitely. I fail to see what the problem is. Why exclude someone who might be the best candidate? Robert Menzies won seven on the trot in Oz.

I'm against having no term limits for heads of states, so I think this is a bad result.

I'm of the same mind even if Chavez should fail to be re-elected during the next round of elections. (He doesn't seem to have even contemplate that possibility.)

I have no idea what you are trying to say, and the few things I can infer from your sentence seem to be somewhat insulting to the Venezuelan poor.

That he doesn't compose himself in a manner that befits a head of state. When he refers to George Bush as "the Devil" who reeks of sulfur, or the previous Prime Minister of Spain as a "Fascist," we don't see the sign of a mature leader capable of dialogue with alternate points of view.

All heads of government in Australia and the United Kingdom can stand for re-election indefinitely. I fail to see what the problem is. Why exclude someone who might be the best candidate? Robert Menzies won seven on the trot in Oz.

Because in a parliamentary system, the head of government is far more accountable to the legislature than the executive in a presidential system. Further, a presidential system gives the executive significantly more unilateral decision making powers than does a parliamentary system.

Because in a parliamentary system, the head of government is far more accountable to the legislature than the executive in a presidential system. Further, a presidential system gives the executive significantly more unilateral decision making powers than does a parliamentary system.

I understand what you're saying. Living here in Oz under a Parliamentary system means I probably don't fully understand the implications of the US system.

But, it seems to me, that preventing people from contesting presidential elections may keep the best person out.

For example, in 2000 Clinton was more popular than Gore. Had Clinton been allowed to run again he probably would have beaten Bush. Now, for all his faults, Clinton couldn't have done a worse job than Bush.

I understand what you're saying. Living here in Oz under a Parliamentary system means I probably don't fully understand the implications of the US system.

But, it seems to me, that preventing people from contesting presidential elections may keep the best person out.

For example, in 2000 Clinton was more popular than Gore. Had Clinton been allowed to run again he probably would have beaten Bush. Now, for all his faults, Clinton couldn't have done a worse job than Bush.

Part of the reason is to keep the institution of the presidency fresh, and to keep the personality of one individual from taking over the position. Franklin Roosevelt, while a very good President, remained in office so long that he personally dominated the position, and created a situation in which all of the institutional knowledge of the Presidency was centered in one man.

I understand what you're saying. Living here in Oz under a Parliamentary system means I probably don't fully understand the implications of the US system.

But, it seems to me, that preventing people from contesting presidential elections may keep the best person out.

For example, in 2000 Clinton was more popular than Gore. Had Clinton been allowed to run again he probably would have beaten Bush. Now, for all his faults, Clinton couldn't have done a worse job than Bush.

read up on Osé de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz Mori if you think term limits are a bad thing. we might have some good presidents serving longer but at the same time it only takes one populist with dictatorial tendencies to screw things up.


Chavez is pretty much a socialist version of Diaz.

Personally, I'm just as opposed to the movement to remove term limits for Uribe in Colombia. Latin American countries put their term limits in place for very good, experiential reasons, and I feel that tearing them down just because someone wants to "get the job done" is horribly short sighted.

I feel that tearing them down just because someone wants to "get the job done" is horribly short sighted.

and what most populist tyrants say.

What do the Venezuelans see in Chavez?

I've wondered the same. But only a Venezuelan can answer that.

I personally would like to see them limit his term. At one point, I kind of admired the man, because I saw what he did with the oil money to build things like the fancy railway and the free health clinics.

I still like his policy of nationalising oil etc... AND I'm deeply disappointed by the outcome of the referendum AND by his seeking a third mandate.

Too much personal power in the same hands for too much time is exactly what ruined most of the best political moments ever. Take the French Revolution with Bonaparte. Or the Soviet Union with Stalin. Or, just for less tragedy, the Italian Republic with Andreotti (first) and Berlusconi (nowadays).

I think that NO public servant (because an elected politician is that!) should stay in the same place for more than two terms.

I've wondered the same. But only a Venezuelan can answer that.
Yeah, and doubtless one too poor to use the internet and speak in English.
I still like his policy of nationalising oil etc...
Bleuch.
AND I'm deeply disappointed by the outcome of the referendum AND by his seeking a third mandate.
I'm no fan of Chavez, but I guess if people want him to lead that's sort of fair enough.
Too much personal power in the same hands for too much time is exactly what ruined most of the best political moments ever. Take the French Revolution with Bonaparte. Or the Soviet Union with Stalin. Or, just for less tragedy, the Italian Republic with Andreotti (first) and Berlusconi (nowadays).
All of those things were crap. Esp. the Soviet Union.
I think that NO public servant (because an elected politician is that!) should stay in the same place for more than two terms.
I dunno, if they do a good job we ought to keep them. Wouldn't want to bring in someone new and lame because we had to.

I can infer from your sentence seem to be somewhat insulting to the Venezuelan poor.

But they're probably used to that too.

Nah, I've nothing against the Venezuelan poor, I just wish they'd elect a leader who's got the ability to carry on a political dialogue at a level higher than a second grader who's been given control of a military.

Yeah, and doubtless one too poor to use the internet and speak in English.

Aelosia would prove that wrong. She's Venezuelan, speaks English and knows how to use a computer...

All of those things were crap. Esp. the Soviet Union.
Thanks for calling crap the Italian Republic. Should I shit back on your country, whatever it is, as a reciprocal exchange of diplomatic compliments? :p

Btw, keeping the same people in the same place of power for ever is a bad idea. Governmental power, at least in republics, should be kept well separated from personal power.

Aelosia would prove that wrong. She's Venezuelan, speaks English and knows how to use a computer...

... and doesn't see anything in Chavez, if I recall correctly.

... and doesn't see anything in Chavez, if I recall correctly.

Correct. Actually, I think many Venezuelans don't really see anything in Chávez. But, I rather have them speak about this than me speculating.

Nah, I've nothing against the Venezuelan poor, I just wish they'd elect a leader who's got the ability to carry on a political dialogue at a level higher than a second grader who's been given control of a military.

Maybe they (the Venezuelan poor) have better things to worry about than whether or not Chavez was sufficiently polite to foreign heads of state. Like increased access to healthcare and education.

Maybe they (the Venezuelan poor) have better things to worry about than whether or not Chavez was sufficiently polite to foreign heads of state. Like increased access to healthcare and education.

...collapsing government revenues, ghastly management of oil infrastructure, crippled non-oil development, economy-busting inflation, international alienation from donor countries, wasteful spending abroad, massive military spending, ineffective "Bolivarian education"...

Why, yes, the Venezuelan poor have a lot more important things to be concerned about than whether Chavez is polite to foreign heads of state. But his behaviors abroad are indicative of his petulant personality and authoritarian attitudes, both of which are exceptionally dangerous when given the backing of an army.

After all, look at who designed the "Bolivarian curriculum". Hugo's brother, an apparent jack-of-all-trades who's exploits include being ambassador to Cuba and foreign minister and ideologue!

Oh, and I forgot, the increasing income inequality across, that too.

But his behaviors abroad are indicative of his petulant personality and authoritarian attitudes, both of which are exceptionally dangerous when given the backing of an army.


On the other hand, you must admit that the venezuelan opposition has lost some of its credit as "very democratic" after they attempted a coup with the help of some military units.

I'm getting the idea that some countries (like Italy or Venezuela) aren't quite ready for democracy, given the general love for strong figureheads bordering on the dictatorial side. This makes me sad.

On the other hand, you must admit that the venezuelan opposition has lost some of its credit as "very democratic" after they attempted a coup with the help of some military units.

Very true. It's a pretty severe problem when both of major viewpoints are stained with their own failed coup. It does not indicate a vibrant democratic system, when the only solution is viewed as on in which the forcible overthrow of democratically elected leaders is viewed as the only option.

I'm getting the idea that some countries (like Italy or Venezuela) aren't quite ready for democracy, given the general love for strong figureheads bordering on the dictatorial side. This makes me sad.

Yeah, but Italy plays musical chairs with its governments, which is downright cool.

I always said in previous threads that it was way too early to call Chavez a dictator because the real test would be whether or not he relinquished power or not in 2012. Well, damn. Right-wingers:1 Drunkendove:0

...collapsing government revenues, ghastly management of oil infrastructure, crippled non-oil development, economy-busting inflation, international alienation from donor countries, wasteful spending abroad, massive military spending, ineffective "Bolivarian education"...Why, yes, the Venezuelan poor have a lot more important things to be concerned about than whether Chavez is polite to foreign heads of state.

How important are these issues to the Venezuelan poor? Assuming that they are as awful as you describe them, were they somehow better during the caudillo era?

I'm guessing you don't really know.

But his behaviors abroad are indicative of his petulant personality and authoritarian attitudes, both of which are exceptionally dangerous when given the backing of an army.

Oh, I see. Tell me, how long has Chavez been a patient of yours, and how long have you been a prcticing psychologist? Or are you just making this up based on media sound bites?

After all, look at who designed the "Bolivarian curriculum". Hugo's brother, an apparent jack-of-all-trades who's exploits include being ambassador to Cuba and foreign minister and ideologue!

And this has so much to do with this thjread!

Oh, and I forgot, the increasing income inequality across, that too.

This might actually be of importance to the poor. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

How important are these issues to the Venezuelan poor? Assuming that they are as awful as you describe them, were they somehow better during the caudillo era?

I'm guessing you don't really know.

That you even refer to the previous governments as the "caudillo era" shows how little you know about Venezuela. Venezuela has had directly elected Presidents and legislatures since 1959, so unless you're just falling into the Chavez polemic, then you're miles off base.

Why is rampant inflation important to the poor? Because it is directly tied to the prices that they pay for basic necessary goods, such as food.

Why is radically increased military spending important to the poor? Because every tank, fighter-bomber and submarine purchased is another meal taken from a poor family. Because military expenditures--especially when purchasing from abroad--do not make growth, they are a net loss to the society that makes the purchase.

Why is irresponsible foreign spending important? Much the same reason. Shipping billions of dollars abroad in an attempt to purchase allies is costing the average Venezuelan a huge price.


Oh, I see. Tell me, how long has Chavez been a patient of yours, and how long have you been a prcticing psychologist? Or are you just making this up based on media sound bites?

I don't need to have one-on-one counseling sessions with Mr. Chavez, nor do I need psychological training exceeding what I received as complementary to my programs in undergraduate and graduate school.

In other words, you have no response to how Chavez behaves in relation to foreign leaders. He has displayed a systematic pattern of behaviors at home and abroad that indicate exactly what I describe. His inability to deal with criticism, his need for grandiose foreign bogeymen, and his general poor behavior should show a clear pattern. After all, within the last two months we've had these sparkling gems of verbiage and policy shower forth from his tongue and his office:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/02/20092143217626298.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50G2F420090117

And this has so much to do with this thjread!

You're the one who brought up education. The fact that his education program is an ineffective indoctrination course that doesn't match up with any international curriculum anywhere else in the world would indicate that no matter how much "Bolivarian education" he provides, it's nothing more than an equal pile of poo.



This might actually be of importance to the poor. Do you have any evidence for this claim?

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205-p0/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html

About a year old, but on page two you'll find the GINI coefficients, showing an increase.

Yeah, but Italy plays musical chairs with its governments, which is downright cool.

Wait. We play musical chairs with cabinets... but's somehow it's just 5 people who were PM in the last 18 years.

Silvio Berlusconi (1994, 2001-2006, 2008-incumbent)
Romano Prodi (1996-1998, 2006-2008)
Massimo D'Alema (1998-2000, also FM in the last Prodi cabinet)
Giuliano Amato (2000-2001, also PM in 1992-1993)
Lamberto Dini (1994-1996, previously minister in the first Berlusconi cabinet, then key senator in the last Prodi cabinet and instrumental in its fall)

Do you remember the Gattopardo? Tutto deve cambiare perchè nulla cambi. Everything must change, so that everything can stay the same.

That you even refer to the previous governments as the "caudillo era" shows how little you know about Venezuela. Venezuela has had directly elected Presidents and legislatures since 1959, so unless you're just falling into the Chavez polemic, then you're miles off base.

How about rather than focusing on a turn of phrase as a way of insulting me, you attempt to answer the questions?

Now, are these problems worse or better under Chavez? Please provide evidence.

Why is rampant inflation important to the poor? Because it is directly tied to the prices that they pay for basic necessary goods, such as food.

Is it worse under Chavez?

Why is radically increased military spending important to the poor? Because every tank, fighter-bomber and submarine purchased is another meal taken from a poor family. Because military expenditures--especially when purchasing from abroad--do not make growth, they are a net loss to the society that makes the purchase.

Is it worse under Chavez?

Why is irresponsible foreign spending important? Much the same reason. Shipping billions of dollars abroad in an attempt to purchase allies is costing the average Venezuelan a huge price.

Is it worse under Chavez? I hope that by repeating the question often enough, you might actually answer it.

I don't need to have one-on-one counseling sessions with Mr. Chavez, nor do I need psychological training exceeding what I received as complementary to my programs in undergraduate and graduate school.

In other words, you have no response to how Chavez behaves in relation to foreign leaders. He has displayed a systematic pattern of behaviors at home and abroad that indicate exactly what I describe. His inability to deal with criticism, his need for grandiose foreign bogeymen, and his general poor behavior should show a clear pattern. After all, within the last two months we've had these sparkling gems of verbiage and policy shower forth from his tongue and his office:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/02/20092143217626298.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE50G2F420090117

So, then you're just making this up based on media sound bites. Okay.

You're the one who brought up education. The fact that his education program is an ineffective indoctrination course that doesn't match up with any international curriculum anywhere else in the world would indicate that no matter how much "Bolivarian education" he provides, it's nothing more than an equal pile of poo.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205-p0/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html

About a year old, but on page two you'll find the GINI coefficients, showing an increase.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_research_2008_03.pdf

A little bit of criticism of Rodriguez's numbers. The GINI is on page four. There's a table and everything Here's the text describing the results:

As can be seen, there is a sharp decline in inequality during the Chávez years, whether one measures from the beginning (1998, the year before Chávez took office) or from the time that the government got control
over the oil industry (2003). As can be seen from the INE data in the first column, the Gini coefficient declined from 48.7 in 1998, or alternatively from 48.1 in 2003, to 42 in 2007. For a rough idea of the size
of this reduction in inequality, compare this to a similar movement in the other direction: from 1980-2005, the Gini coefficient for the United States went from 40.3 to 46.98, a period in which there was an enormous (upward) redistribution of income.

Aelosia would prove that wrong. She's Venezuelan, speaks English and knows how to use a computer...
Aye but is no fan of Chavez.

Wait. We play musical chairs with cabinets... but's somehow it's just 5 people who were PM in the last 18 years.

Silvio Berlusconi (1994, 2001-2006, 2008-incumbent)
Romano Prodi (1996-1998, 2006-2008)
Massimo D'Alema (1998-2000, also FM in the last Prodi cabinet)
Giuliano Amato (2000-2001, also PM in 1992-1993)
Lamberto Dini (1994-1996, previously minister in the first Berlusconi cabinet, then key senator in the last Prodi cabinet and instrumental in its fall)

Well, someone has to hit the pause button on the tape player ;)

Do you remember the Gattopardo? Tutto deve cambiare perchè nulla cambi. Everything must change, so that everything can stay the same.

Thanks for calling crap the Italian Republic. Should I shit back on your country, whatever it is, as a reciprocal exchange of diplomatic compliments? :p
Yeah try keeping a government in power longer than a couple of years, and sort out Napoli and we'll talk about how bad Britain is :tongue:

Aye but is no fan of Chavez.

She's no fan of anyone. It's all "goddam politicans acting like children, I hate them all". It's awesome.

i am sure after Chavez troll dies the next president will follow a policy of Ley Lerdo anyways.

She's no fan of anyone. It's all "goddam politicans acting like children, I hate them all". It's awesome.

I have never gotten that impression from Aelosia's posts.:confused:

Yeah try keeping a government in power longer than a couple of years, and sort out Napoli and we'll talk about how bad Britain is :tongue:

Done. Berlusconi 2001-2006. Didn't help that much.

Actually, Italy fared a lot better back in the '60s, when cabinets lasted about one year on the average.

As for Napoli, bids are open. Minimum is -1 M€ . That is, we won't pay more than 1 M€ to the country who takes it.

How about rather than focusing on a turn of phrase as a way of insulting me, you attempt to answer the questions?

It's not merely a turn of phrase, caudillo has several very clear implications built into it, and the predecessor governments were rarely strong, and undermined by a low international oil price. Otherwise, you're asking me to compare economic conditions now to those in the forties and fifties.

Now, are these problems worse or better under Chavez? Please provide evidence.

First, my critique is of Chavez's policies, not a comparison of pre-Chavez Venezuela with Venezuela in its current state, as there is one fundamental difference that is beyond the control of the government: The price of Venezuela's single dominant commodity export: Oil. Chavez has presided over an era in which government revenues have increased radically as a result of the global price surge. (http://ngc891.blogdns.net/pub/pictures/oil-price.jpg
) To indicate that the surge in revenues is not because of greater quantities of product produced, we can see that oil production has decreased. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Venezuela/images/venez-oil_production_consumption.gif) What condemns Chavez is how little he's done with a boon of this magnitude, given his promises to his people.



Is it worse under Chavez?

Once again, current inflation issues cannot be compared to previous administrations, because of how the international economic environment has changed so radically. Immediately prior to Chavez, the ripples of the East Asian financial crisis rocked Venezuelan inflation causing immediate spikes.

Right now, though, Venezuela's inflation rate is second in the world to only Zimbabwe (and we all want to be like cholera-land), and giving public employees a 30% raise[/quote]to shore up electoral support isn't going to help the situation.



Is it worse under Chavez?

As a percentage of GDP, military spending has held constant, but in real dollars, spending has increased--fueled especially by the purchase of big-ticket weapons systems such as Sukhoi fighter-bombers, or a very large quantity of small arms. Given the real problems facing Venezuela the money that has been spent on this could be easily spent in ways that would address other problems.



Is it worse under Chavez? I hope that by repeating the question often enough, you might actually answer it.

The temporal comparison is meaningless because of changes in the international oil markets.

So, then you're just making this up based on media sound bites. Okay.

It's what we have to work with. What would you say about a leader who refers to his opponents as "dolts" and "mental retards"? These are the sorts of comments you'd expect from someone who is unwilling to see his opponents points of views and negotiate with them. It's indicative of the same behaviors as George W. Bush when he said "You're either with us or against us," or the "freedom fries/freedom toast" campaign.

http://www.flacso.org/hemisferio/al-eeuu/boletines/2007/97/reg_02.pdf




Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I've got several papers, but you need access to the subscription service. Are you affiliated with a university in any way?

[url]http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_research_2008_03.pdf (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7410058.stm)

A little bit of criticism of Rodriguez's numbers. The GINI is on page four. There's a table and everything Here's the text describing the results:

Meh. Massive social spending derived from non-production related increases will likely reduce inequality.