Originally posted by kmax87however my position on the question you posed, "is it inevitable that for a nation like Venezuala to hold on to the control of its resources, a strong arm *socialist* like Chavez will be elected?"
I'm sure I would not give anyone my unqualified support. But, by the same token I would not offer unqualified disaproval of a person or regime either.
I have a problem with the notion that my 'support' of anything makes a dot of difference anyway. Most issues are complex and as a student of history, I find there are usually compelling reasons why certain s ...[text shortened]... seem fitting and appropriate, the friendliness of your observations notwithstanding. 😛
is: No.
It is NOT inevitable.
Look at Chile and what they've done with their copper wealth.
Sure they had a more conservative strong arm dictator, but the economic policies were much more responsible.
Chile is the first Latin American Tiger in modern history.
Resource wealth can be handled responsibly and without strong arm socialists.
Resources may be partially a curse, but not THAT big a curse to force Chavez types on Nations.
Chavez types basically take advantage of people stupidity, and if they believe their own ideology they are themselves in need of some new slots in their head for an upgraded brain with stronger processing power.
2 edits
Originally posted by eljefejesusHow was the nation's oil wealth being spent by the old ologarchy (as opposed to Chavez's new oligarchy)? By what ideological terms of reference was that pattern of priorities and spending not irresponsible? Do not drastic inequalities in wealth, insufficent health services for large swathes of the population, risible literacy rates qualify as "long-term" "complicated" problems that appeared "difficult for some to understand" among the 'ruling classes' that Chavez's swaggering populism swept aside? How many more decades should the boggle-eyed capitalists have been given? Wasn't it ever possible to get any of them to "sit through an explanation" of what was actually going on in their country?
Plus his irresponsible spending of the nation's oil wealth on free goodies is easy, benefits them in the short run, and the long-run problems are complicated and difficult for some to understand or sit through an explanation.
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusSo you are contending that your own creed is not an ideology?
Chavez types basically take advantage of people stupidity, and if they believe their own ideology they are themselves in need of some new slots in their head for an upgraded brain with stronger processing power.
Originally posted by eljefejesus150 or more years of unbridled U.S. style capitalism on the South American continent, and now in 2009 you have the cheek to call "Chile, the first Latin American Tiger in modern history" as being in "capitalism's" corner? This prosperity - which is still shockingly high high income inequality - has basically happened in the last 20 years, since - at long last - social democracy replaced Pinochet's murderous military dictatorship and since the excesses of toxic Milton Friedmanism has been moderated and diluted.
Chile is the first Latin American Tiger in modern history.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThe problem is not the nature of his policies, but his methods.
How was the nation's oil wealth being spent by the old ologarchy (as opposed to Chavez's new oligarchy)? By what ideological terms of reference was that pattern of priorities and spending not irresponsible? Do not drastic inequalities in wealth, insufficent health services for large swathes of the population, risible literacy rates qualify as "long-term" "compli em to "sit through an explanation" of what was actually going on in their country?
Like pre-revolutionary Cuba, venezuela was crippled by inequality and the greed/corruption by the elites.
His rhetoric is socialist, but he is only doing to a certain degree what (for example) we did in Brazil with the petrobras.
Originally posted by FMFWhy are you even pretending to know anything about Chile's economic growth over the last several decades?
150 or more years of unbridled U.S. style capitalism on the South American continent, and now in 2009 you have the cheek to call "Chile, the first Latin American Tiger in modern history" as being in "capitalism's" corner? This prosperity - which is still shockingly high high income inequality - has basically happened in the last 20 years, since - at long last - ...[text shortened]... torship and since the excesses of toxic Milton Friedmanism has been moderated and diluted.
Chile used to intervene in its economy, be closed to trade, and nationalized many industries:
"After six years of government austerity measures, which succeeded in reestablishing Chile's creditworthiness, Chileans elected to office during the 1938-58 period a succession of center and left-of-center governments interested in promoting economic growth by means of government intervention.
Prompted in part by the devastating earthquake of 1939, the Popular Front government of Pedro Aguirre Cerda created the Production Development Corporation (Corporación de Fomento de la Producción, CORFO) to encourage with subsidies and direct investments an ambitious program of import substitution industrialization. Consequently, as in other Latin American countries, protectionism became an entrenched aspect of the Chilean economy."
Chile began the long process of market reforms starting in the 1970's and pushed them further in 1985, with impressive results:
"The adjustment program that started in 1985 also had a structural adjustment component that was aimed at consolidating the market-oriented reforms of the 1970s and early 1980s, including the privatization process, the opening of the economy, and the development of a dynamic capital market. There were several structural goals of the 1985 program: rebuild the financial sector, which had been nearly destroyed during the 1982 crisis; reduce import tariffs below the 35 percent level that they had reached during 1984 to a 15% uniform level; and promote exports through a set of fiscal incentives and a competitive real exchange rate.
Perhaps the most important aspects of these structural reform measures were the privatization and recapitalization of firms and banks that had failed during the 1982-83 crisis. As a first step in this process, the Central Bank bought private banks' nonperforming portfolios. In order to finance this operation, the Central Bank issued domestic credit. The banks, in turn, paid a rate of 5 percent on the nonperforming portfolios and promised to repurchase them out of retained profits. This recapitalization program had as its counterpart a privatization plan that returned the ownership of those banks and firms that had been nationalized in 1983 to the private sector. Economist Rolf J. Lüders estimates that about 550 enterprises under public-sector control, including most of Chile's largest corporations, were privatized between 1974 and 1990. By the end of 1991, fewer that fifty firms remained in the public sector."
Even while talking out of ignorance, you strangely seek to give credit for Chile's performance to "social democracy" and at the same time attack the "shockingly high" income inequality while ignoring the dramatic improvements in Chile's economy due to market reforms.
Originally posted by eljefejesusgood points.
Why are you even pretending to know anything about Chile's economic growth over the last several decades?
Chile used to intervene in its economy, be closed to trade, and nationalized many industries:
"After six years of government austerity measures, which succeeded in reestablishing Chile's creditworthiness, Chileans elected to office during the 1 ...[text shortened]... hile ignoring the dramatic improvements in Chile's economy due to market reforms.