well this thread seems to be mostly between palynka and ragnorak. For anyone else reading this thread know this:
American media for the most part has made Chavez out to be crazy and unstable, a dictator interested in only himself and personal glory.
While Chavez no doubt needs polishing from a diplomatic standpoint (the devil?? sulfur??) the guy has a plan to rebuild the south american countries. The plan is not one founded on Capitalism, but rather on socialism. And NOT socialism as Americans think, ie Communism, but rather one more along the lines of Sweden and Canada.
This plan will take several decades and will require the nationalization of several previously private industries, namely OIL. Venezula is awash in oil and wants to use the profits from this natural resource to pay off its international debt and raise the standard of living for its citizens. The US of course, would rather see the profits go to its own OIL industry companies...(keep in mind most of this current US admistration is made up of previous oil industry execs who will return to the oil industry once they are kicked out of office)
It is a FACT that the US with the help of the CIA organized the opposition and military parties in Venezula to stage a Coup against Chavez a few years ago. It actually succeeded but Chavez was able to regain power a few days later. Of course, the CIA/US has denied they were involved but do you own research and you'll find its a well known fact.
If you want to judge Chavez, keep in mind his reforms will take many many years to take hold. He HAS agreed to give oil to Cuba for basically free. THIS DOES NOT MAKE HIM A COMMUNIST. In turn Cuba has agreed to send its surplus of doctors to Venezula to treat and heal the poor villagers with no access to health care. The doctors havent reached everybody yet and Venezula still needs many more doctors to adequately take care of everyone. BUT, its a start.
The point, if you're still reading, is that Chavez is trying to wean the Southern American countries off of US influence and control. The IMF/World Bank are controlled by the US (YES THEY ARE) and follow a business first approach to economics. Chavez wants a people first economy. Once his people's standard of living has been lifted, he will then re-open industries to privatization. Chavez has resisted the personal money offered to him by the US to do their bidding and put his people first.
As Chavez said, read Chomsky's "US Hegemony or Survival?" book from a few years ago, or even better is John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"
Give the man a chance and don't listen to the god dam TV!
Originally posted by RagnorakIt's not the IMF's fault that all those countries had very crappy governants at the time.
IMF policies are always geared at the extraction of a country's money to foreign multinationals. These policies are not normally tolerated by the people who are being bled dry, and so there is normally a protest, which if the leader of the country wants to retain control, will need to be put down.
Examples of IMF policies exploiting poor people and lead a populace sick of being exploited.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/SAP.asp
D
You blame the IMF for all these countries troubles because that's what governments use as excuses for failure. In Europe, we now see the same type of excuses. Look at the campaign against the EU constitution, it was about everything BUT the constitution (and I was against the constitution).
It's not my fault, the IMF made me do it. The IMF never told anyone to repress protests violently, maybe you should look at the political history of these countries and find out that IMF wasn't a shifting factor at all.
Same thing with Chavez and some countries in the Middle East. The country has problems? No problem, we'll blame the US and point the finger so hard, we'll get the popular support.
Your comments on Brazil are quite explanatory. The police regularly kill poor people, there's a huge rich-poor divide, blame it on the IMF. Brazil's economy has been a mess long before the Washington Consensus, when the IMF made a turn towards neoliberalism in 1990 (which I oppose).
The populace is sick of being exploited, but they're pointing the fingers at the wrong enemy. Corruption is the number one cause for exploitation in any political system.
Originally posted by Palynkaokay, you couldn't find the point on a triangle. Since you obviously haven't figured it out, you can't equate the IMF with social problems within a country. They are different things.
It's not the IMF's fault that all those countries had very crappy governants at the time.
You blame the IMF for all these countries troubles because that's what governments use as excuses for failure. In Europe, we now see the same type of excuses. Look at the campaign against the EU constitution, it was about everything BUT the constitution (and I was a ...[text shortened]... ong enemy. Corruption is the number one cause for exploitation in any political system.
As you say, these countries usually ALREADY have social problems BEFORE the IMF goes into the country and the country continues to have social problems AFTER the IMF is done. So your argument then is that since the IMF didn't change anything, then how can you blame them? On the surface, that argument may appear to be correct. Fortunately, not everyone in this world are surficial.
Ask yourself, WHAT DID THE IMF DO TO THE COUNTRY??? What limits did it impose for its US backed financial assistance loans? What program cuts (ie social spending) did it demand? What were the terms of the loan? What are the interest payments? How much debt does this country have to incurr as a result of IMF internention? And most importantly, WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES should the country default on these terms?
The IMF/World Bank have imposed such harsh conditions on these countries that it becomes under IMF/US control. The country is forced to do the bidding of the US or face default of the loans. The US demands access to oil, military bases to be built within the country to be used as jump stations, and voting for US policies at the UN.
Chavez, for one, wants to stop this dependance and reliance on the US. This is why the US wants him out of power. It's also why Chavez is trying to get other South American countries to end their reliance on the US backed loans.
It's way way WAY to easy to just be flippant and blame "corruption". Look at the whole picture.
Originally posted by PalynkaCorruption is the number one cause for exploitation in any political system.
I'm looking, you're the only one blaming everything on one thing.
Who wrote that again, not 10 minutes ago?
And I haven't blamed anything on any one thing. I've stated Chavez is being distorted in the media, he has a plan for reform, and the IMF/US shares the blame for suppressing some of the poorer countires in this world through their policies.
Did you even read any of what I wrote?
Originally posted by uzlessHistorical reasons, the IMF's policies on financial markets, the deterioration of the terms of trade of agricultural goods, the lack of a disciplined and well educated work-force, the list goes on. Development is not a magic formula.
hmm, too bad you didn't say what the other reasons are. Although you seem pretty sure that the IMF doesn't play a role. What are the other reasons then?
In my personal opinion, corruption is still the biggest problem as it is directly related with bad governance.
Why do you think I thought the IMF didn't play a role? Because I said it wasn't the mother of all evils?
Originally posted by PalynkaIt may not be the fault of the IMF that the government was crappy, but it certainly is the fault of the IMF to attach crippling interest rates to loans and to attach preconditions, such as privatisation, to said loans. Also, giving poor financial advice to countries isn't a good thing to do either.
It's not the IMF's fault that all those countries had very crappy governants at the time.
You blame the IMF for all these countries troubles because that's what governments use as excuses for failure. In Europe, we now see the same type of excuses. Look at the campaign against the EU constitution, it was about everything BUT the constitution (and I was a ...[text shortened]... ong enemy. Corruption is the number one cause for exploitation in any political system.
Do you disagree that the IMF were effectively working on behalf of Bechtel in Cochabamba?
Venezuela has problems, true, as does pretty much every country. Do you not think that bribes were paid to the government to get that corrupt deal in place whereby Exxon got all of Venezuela's oil for a mere 1% tax?
What are your personal experiences of developing countries by the way? You're an economist, aren't you? When looking at the economic policies, do you look at the social and environmental implications of these policies?
D
Originally posted by Palynkayour reply was intended to refute the other guys post. One in which he said the IMF was at fault. You, in turn, tried laying the blame on other things. I don't see anywhere in your post something to the effect of...
Historical reasons, the IMF's policies on financial markets, the deterioration of the terms of trade of agricultural goods, the lack of a disciplined and well educated work-force, the list goes on. Development is not a magic formula.
In my personal opinion, corruption is still the biggest problem as it is directly related with bad governance.
Why do yo ...[text shortened]... think I thought the IMF didn't play a role? Because I said it wasn't the mother of all evils?
"yes, the IMF holds some responsibility. Since the US provides the financial backing to the IMF and uses this financial leverage against countries in order to due the US's bidding, the US is also at fault. However, in addition to this responsibility, there are other reasons why a country finds itself in the shape that it is. They are as follows...."
Now, that would have been a much clearer explanation. And since this thread is questioning Chavez's character, the IMF role is a huge consideration since that's half the reason why Chavez is doing the things he's doing on the international stage....namely raising global awareness to how the US uses the IMF/World Bank as extensions of its foreign policy.
Originally posted by marinjyou don't need to go to venzuela to know it's a poor country...In the same way you don't need to go to Ethiopia to know there isn't much food there, or that you don't need to go to Siberia to know it gets cold in the Winter.
did you visit venezuela, did you know that venezuela is very poort?
Are you saying that unless you actually put your feet on the soil of a country, then you can't possibly know what's going on?