• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AP: VP of Venezuela Has Announced Hugo Chavez has Died

Well, first, the price of a barrel of crude was $22 in 1997, it is currently $111.00.

Second, the rest of the joke zoomed over your head.

What was the joke ...



That chart is EXTREMELY subjective and doesn't actually show the reality, just peoples perception, which is expected in a polerized country.

That number was taken by an organization called "Criminal Justice International Associates," which is just one right wing dude, which a history of anti-Chavez nonsense, look up the source.
 
Oh BS.

You people on the left need to STOP LYING. At least to Americans.

Venezuela was a backwards Socialist crime ridden hell hole under Chavez who devalued their currency making everything more expensive and nationalized the oil industry as Venezuelas neighbors were expanding their free markets and actually HELPING the poor.

His manipulation of the his nationalized oil companies drove fuel prices up all over the world.

Socialism guarantees evrryone, not just the poor suffer

That's not what the numbers say, living standards have gone up, number of poor people have gone down, those in serious poverty has dropped, health care quality has gone up, as has education, venezuela has one of the most vibrant cooperative models around.

yes there hs been crime and deflation, all economies have problems, but overall, his model has been extremely successfull, which is why his NEIGHBORS have all taken a left turn.
 
Thats nonsense.

View attachment 67143884View attachment 67143885View attachment 67143886View attachment 67143887
Investment and GDP Growth in Venezuela | venezuelanalysis.com

Manufacturing has increased, as has trade, as has capital formation.

I'd like to see the piece by Rueters.

Mr Chavez's failure to diversify Venezuela's economy means that oil is still its mainstay. In fact, it accounts for more than 90% of the country's foreign currency inflows.
About 50% of government revenues come from the petroleum industry, mostly from state company PDVSA.

Mr Chavez's government took firm control of PDVSA in 2003, when it fired 40% of the workforce in the aftermath of a general strike aimed at forcing him from power.

But critics have accused the firm of neglecting maintenance while it funnelled oil revenue into government social programmes, especially after an explosion in August 2012 at the Amuay refinery, the country's largest, in which 42 people were killed.

Instead of investing in PDVSA to increase production, Mr Chavez treated it as a cash cow, milking its funds to finance his social spending on housing, healthcare and transport.

Finding out just how that money has been dispensed is not easy. But the government has become steadily more involved in every sector of the economy, to the detriment of the private sector.

But if you look at the superior economic performance of neighbouring Brazil and Colombia during the same period, it suddenly doesn't look so rosy.

BBC News - Hugo Chavez leaves Venezuela in economic muddle

What would the link by Reuters change when they are citing Rueters for that part?
 
Here ya go RG.....the Rueters link. ;)

Fonden is the largest of a handful of secretive funds that put decisions on how to spend tens of billions of dollars in the hands of Chavez, who has vowed to turn the OPEC nation's economy into a model of oil-financed socialism. Since its founding seven years ago, Fonden has been funneling cash into hundreds of projects personally approved by Chavez but not reviewed by Congress -- from swimming-pool renovations for soldiers, to purchases of Russian fighter jets, to public housing and other projects with broad popular appeal.

The fund now accounts for nearly a third of all investment in Venezuela and half of public investment, and last year received 25 percent of government revenue from the oil industry. All told, it has taken in close to $100 billion of Venezuela's oil revenue in the past seven years.

Fonden attracts scant attention beyond policy experts and Wall Street analysts. But it is at the heart of Chavez's promise to use Venezuela's bulging oil revenue to build new industries, create jobs and diversify the economy in the service of his self-styled revolution.

Finding out how much of that money Fonden has spent, and on what, is not easy. The most detailed descriptions usually come from Chavez himself, rattling off multimillion-dollar investments on television while chatting with workers and extolling the virtues of socialism. Fonden does not regularly release lists of projects in its portfolio.

Adversaries excoriate it as a piggy bank that lets Chavez arbitrarily spend billions of dollars with little more than the stroke of a pen and perhaps a celebratory Tweet, with accountability to no one. The secrecy also makes it impossible to determine what went wrong - at Fonden, or at the ministry level, or on the ground -- when a project like Pulpaca stalls.

At the same time, Chavez is under growing opposition fire over abandoned or half-built projects, including some that received millions of dollars from Fonden. A fleet of modern busses for a transit project in the city of Barquisimeto, which received $301 million from Fonden, were left sitting idle so long that vines started growing inside them.

Some information about Fonden's outlays can be found in annual reports of government ministries. The finance ministry last year released a partial list of projects, following pressure by Ramos, the opposition legislator. A link on Fonden's website apparently dating from 2007 also provided a partial list of projects, but was taken offline in the first week of September. A cryptically worded internal Fonden document leaked to the press provides an outline of its financial investments, though it omits key details, such as losses on holdings.

Other publicly available data is provided at irregular intervals and in formats that often do not allow for comprehensive comparisons. Public officials pressed for additional information are as laconic as Chavez is loquacious. A Reuters reporter at a Fonden event who approached the finance minister -- the fund's president - to ask questions was physically restrained by two security personnel.....snip~

Special Report: Chavez's oil-fed fund obscures Venezuela money trail | Reuters
 
Mr Chavez's failure to diversify Venezuela's economy means that oil is still its mainstay. In fact, it accounts for more than 90% of the country's foreign currency inflows.
About 50% of government revenues come from the petroleum industry, mostly from state company PDVSA.

Mr Chavez's government took firm control of PDVSA in 2003, when it fired 40% of the workforce in the aftermath of a general strike aimed at forcing him from power.

But critics have accused the firm of neglecting maintenance while it funnelled oil revenue into government social programmes, especially after an explosion in August 2012 at the Amuay refinery, the country's largest, in which 42 people were killed.

Instead of investing in PDVSA to increase production, Mr Chavez treated it as a cash cow, milking its funds to finance his social spending on housing, healthcare and transport.

Finding out just how that money has been dispensed is not easy. But the government has become steadily more involved in every sector of the economy, to the detriment of the private sector.

But if you look at the superior economic performance of neighbouring Brazil and Colombia during the same period, it suddenly doesn't look so rosy.

BBC News - Hugo Chavez leaves Venezuela in economic muddle

What would the link by Reuters change when they are citing Rueters for that part?

Yeah, Venezuela relies on oil, but it did so MORE before Chavez, manufacturing and other sectores has improved including oil.

Brazil has been lead by Marxists ... literally, and Colombia, is something we should talk about if we are talking about human rights abuses, waayyy before venezuela..

But the facts remain, millinos out of poverty, millions out of extreme poverty, and a growing non oil economy. GDP growth of over 5% (would'nt the US be happy with that), inflation (although high) is falling.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela-2012-09.pdf (read the actual Data).

The truth is Chavez' policies made venezuela economically better off by leaps and bounds.
 
When you have that much oil, it isn't difficult. The man was a tyrrant and an evil bastard.

It obviously is, since previous leaders havnt' done it, and since other countries with natural resources havn't done it.

It's funny right wingers scream tyrant as soon as the whitehouse screams tyrant, yet are silent when it comes to tyrants that are ACTUAL tyrants that the US supports.
 
What was the joke ...


The joke was that Venezuela's modest even-if-real economic improvement came from the fact that it's prime export, making up 95% of all exports from the country, had grown in value by orders of magnitude. Venezuela had more money and less people were poor. SHOCKER. For that to be the results of Chavez policy I made the comical assumption that he must have raised changed the price of oil as part of his recovery program.

As the CNN fact check confirms, Chavez did LESS for the poor than previous presidents, and the only thing that happened in that time was a huge influx of petro-dollars.



That chart is EXTREMELY subjective and doesn't actually show the reality, just peoples perception, which is expected in a polerized country.


Actually, you are being EXTREMELY subjective in choosing to ignore the evidence on display. You can't even depend on the election results as EVERYONE KNOWS they were rigged. From the control of the media in order to control reporting on the opposition to a huge number of districts reporting THE EXACT SAME TURNOUT AND VOTE TALLY, only a true believer can possibly believe that Venezuela was actually a democracy under Chavez.



That number was taken by an organization called "Criminal Justice International Associates," which is just one right wing dude, which a history of anti-Chavez nonsense, look up the source.


What drivel. Essentially you will discount any negative report on CHavez... because it is negative about Chavez.
 
The joke was that Venezuela's modest even-if-real economic improvement came from the fact that it's prime export, making up 95% of all exports from the country, had grown in value by orders of magnitude. Venezuela had more money and less people were poor. SHOCKER. For that to be the results of Chavez policy I made the comical assumption that he must have raised changed the price of oil as part of his recovery program.

As the CNN fact check confirms, Chavez did LESS for the poor than previous presidents, and the only thing that happened in that time was a huge influx of petro-dollars.

Yet non Oil revenue has also gone up significantly, so it isn't all just Oil, also without Chavez' reforms all that oil money wouldn't have made people less poor, it would have only made Oil executives richer. Why hasn't the oil spike done the same in other countries?

Also what CNN fact check?

Actually, you are being EXTREMELY subjective in choosing to ignore the evidence on display. You can't even depend on the election results as EVERYONE KNOWS they were rigged. From the control of the media in order to control reporting on the opposition to a huge number of districts reporting THE EXACT SAME TURNOUT AND VOTE TALLY, only a true believer can possibly believe that Venezuela was actually a democracy under Chavez.

Errr, the elections were monitered by the UN and shown to be clean ... the same cannot be said for many US elections.

What drivel. Essentially you will discount any negative report on CHavez... because it is negative about Chavez.

Look up the source .... seriously.
 
Yet non Oil revenue has also gone up significantly, so it isn't all just Oil, also without Chavez' reforms all that oil money wouldn't have made people less poor, it would have only made Oil executives richer. Why hasn't the oil spike done the same in other countries?

Also what CNN fact check?



Errr, the elections were monitered by the UN and shown to be clean ... the same cannot be said for many US elections.



Look up the source .... seriously.

So every Venezuelan now has a more equal slice of the cake. The trouble is, that cake has not been getting much bigger.

"Venezuela is the fifth largest economy in Latin America, but during the last decade, it's been the worst performer in GDP per capita growth," says Arturo Franco of the Center for International Development at Harvard University.

As Mr Franco says, it depends on how you measure Venezuela's progress.
If you compare life under Mr Chavez with the previous 20 years, under a now discredited two-party system widely blamed for rampant corruption, the Chavez era is preferable.
But if you look at the superior economic performance of neighbouring Brazil and Colombia during the same period, it suddenly doesn't look so rosy.

In the words of Michael Henderson at Capital Economics: "The current malaise is the product of years of capital flight and under-investment, which has hollowed out the country's productive base."

High inflation, still nudging 20% a year, doesn't help either.

As survey organisation Consensus Economics says: "Soaring inflation and government spending - coupled with currency and capital controls - have created a widening fiscal deficit.
"The authorities are increasingly reliant on external debt to finance this."
For "external debt", read loans from China. According to Bloomberg news agency, the state-run China Development Bank has lent Venezuela $42.5bn over a five-year period.

Unless PDVSA's underperformance can be remedied, those debts will remain and will probably grow as the country's gap between spending and income widens.

As a result, Mr Chavez bequeaths a nation beset by crumbling infrastructure, unsustainable public spending and underperforming industry.
But there are strong suspicions that much money has been wasted - not just through corruption, but also sheer incompetence
.


Pretty much says it there RG! ;)
 
VP of Venezuela Has Announced Hugo Chavez has Died

Good riddence...May he be experiencing the smell of sulfur for eternity.
 
Yet non Oil revenue has also gone up significantly


INFLATION went up significantly. It was at 20% at the time of Chavez death. Do you actually understand what drives 20% inflation in a country? I'll give you a hint: it's not from economic growth.


The GNI of Venezuela has been mostly stagnant during Chavez stint as president while GDP has grown (albeit weakly). This disparity doesn't come about by real economic growth, it comes about by growing national debt. So Venezuela's "growth" has all been smoke and mirrors fueled by bad currency policy (inflation) and bad over all fiscal policy (rising debt). Essentially the government pumped more currency into the economy (which didn't bother Chavez and his cronies since their wealth was pinned to an international commodity), putting more paper in the hands of his people so he could claim a victory against poverty, but it didn't help the actual Venezuelans since the costs of goods and services are rising to keep pace.

The Per capita GNI in constant dollars declined under Chavez until 2003, when *surprise* the cost of crude oil skyrocketed. So, the ACTUAL income rise in Venezuela in that time was primarily from the oil industry.

This is all fundamental economics at work here.


so it isn't all just Oil, also without Chavez' reforms all that oil money wouldn't have made people less poor, it would have only made Oil executives richer. Why hasn't the oil spike done the same in other countries?


It DID make oil executives richer: CHAVEZ. But he also had his cabal of fellow billionaires at the top of the Venezuelan food chain who benefited from Chavez graft so long as they played along..


Also what CNN fact check?


It was already linked in the thread. Go back and read it.


Errr, the elections were monitered by the UN and shown to be clean ... the same cannot be said for many US elections.


As has already been shown, the one UN inspection run by the Carter foundation was later found by an independent MIT study to have clear signs of rampant vote tampering exactly as I described above.


Look up the source .... seriously.


I have, have you read the source? Given that everyone other than the die hard socialists accept his report as definitive I will go with that until you can provide some other evidence that we can discuss that amounts to more than ad hominem.
 
INFLATION went up significantly. It was at 20% at the time of Chavez death. Do you actually understand what drives 20% inflation in a country? I'll give you a hint: it's not from economic growth.


The GNI of Venezuela has been mostly stagnant during Chavez stint as president while GDP has grown (albeit weakly). This disparity doesn't come about by real economic growth, it comes about by growing national debt. So Venezuela's "growth" has all been smoke and mirrors fueled by bad currency policy (inflation) and bad over all fiscal policy (rising debt). Essentially the government pumped more currency into the economy (which didn't bother Chavez and his cronies since their wealth was pinned to an international commodity), putting more paper in the hands of his people so he could claim a victory against poverty, but it didn't help the actual Venezuelans since the costs of goods and services are rising to keep pace.

The Per capita GNI in constant dollars declined under Chavez until 2003, when *surprise* the cost of crude oil skyrocketed. So, the ACTUAL income rise in Venezuela in that time was primarily from the oil industry.

This is all fundamental economics at work here.

Yeah ... inflation went up, but it was up higher before, it's going in the right direction.

Also economic growth many does DOES create inflation.

BTW this is not a problem unique to Chavez look at inflation before chavez, it was a problem there before.

Also where are you getting the GNI being stagnant?

gni_venezuela.jpg

Also poverty rates and living standard rates are inflation adjusted ...

So that growth is DISPITE the inflation.

It DID make oil executives richer: CHAVEZ. But he also had his cabal of fellow billionaires at the top of the Venezuelan food chain who benefited from Chavez graft so long as they played along..

Not really, if you believe that then I guess the venezuelan economy grew without the Oil, but the fact is the Oil money wenet to help the economy

It was already linked in the thread. Go back and read it.

What post

I have, have you read the source? Given that everyone other than the die hard socialists accept his report as definitive I will go with that until you can provide some other evidence that we can discuss that amounts to more than ad hominem.

NO ONE accepts that report as definitive, the media ran with it, but that source is not reputable AT ALL, infact its one guy, not an economist, who's basically just an anti-Chavez activist, what's his sources for CHaves' wealth? How did he calculate it?
 
Yeah ... inflation went up, but it was up higher before, it's going in the right direction.

It's has bounced between 20 and 40% his entire time as president. It has no direction.

And I'm not holding water for any previous Venezuelan president, just pointing out to you that your rosy glasses view of the Venezuelan economy is flawed.


Also economic growth many does DOES create inflation.


Growing scarcity of commodities and/or a growing supply in currency leads to inflation. Economic growth is neither of those. In the case of Venezuela it's been a combination of the two.


BTW this is not a problem unique to Chavez look at inflation before chavez, it was a problem there before.

I never said it wasn't. But if you want to claim economic success under CHavez you have to actually show it. The GNI versus GDP comparison in combination with the inflation doesn't paint the picture of a healthy economy. The only real source of economic advancement in Venezuela has come from the oil industry.

In fact, the primary reason that the GNI really rose in 2003 was because that was the year when the oil industry was finally nationalized and it's profits were counted in GNI.


Also where are you getting the GNI being stagnant?

View attachment 67143889


Care to provide a readable graph? And yes, as I said, the GNI was stagnant/declining under Chavez until 2003. When he nationalized the oil industry the GNI started counting all of it's profits towards GNI, AND the cost of crude also sky rocketed.


Also poverty rates and living standard rates are inflation adjusted ...


US poverty rates are inflation adjusted, but there is no set definition from country to country for the "poverty line".... so what was Venezuela's criteria? Please provide citation.


So that growth is DISPITE the inflation.


You haven't shown that.


Not really, if you believe that then I guess the venezuelan economy grew without the Oil, but the fact is the Oil money wenet to help the economy


Because Chavez said so? I know that seems to be enough for you, but not for me.


What post


Really? Page 13. Go there. Post is by Harshaw.



NO ONE accepts that report as definitive, the media ran with it, but that source is not reputable AT ALL, infact its one guy, not an economist, who's basically just an anti-Chavez activist, what's his sources for CHaves' wealth? How did he calculate it?


Hah, "the media all ran the story but nobody thought it was reputable!" .... I see a flaw in your reasoning....
 
At 2:45 PM on Tuesday March 5th 2013, the world became a better place when the Communist dictator Hugo Chavez died like a sniveling coward as he begged not to die while blaming the United States for the "pelvic" cancer that was eating away at his manhood, of which I doubt there was very much_

I'm hoping there's a very special place for him and his murderous comrades; Fidel, Che, Adolf, Vladimir and Mao_:devil:
 
At 2:45 PM on Tuesday March 5th 2013, the world became a better place when the Communist dictator Hugo Chavez died like a sniveling coward as he begged not to die while blaming the United States for the "pelvic" cancer that was eating away at his manhood, of which I doubt there was very much_

I'm hoping there's a very special place for him and his murderous comrades; Fidel, Che, Adolf, Vladimir and Mao_:devil:

You do realize Hugo Chavez was a devote Catholic right?
I dont get with the rights fetish of thinking that Chavez was some sort of tyrant dictator.
 
You do realize Hugo Chavez was a devote Catholic right?
I dont get with the rights fetish of thinking that Chavez was some sort of tyrant dictator.

Mainly because he was a Socialist and in the eyes of the uneducated Socialist=Communist.
 
Mainly because he was a Socialist and in the eyes of the uneducated Socialist=Communist.

Being a socialist does not make one a tyrant evil leader. True some socialists were tyrants but also some capitalists were tyrants. Its idiotic.
 
Being a socialist does not make one a tyrant evil leader. True some socialists were tyrants but also some capitalists were tyrants. Its idiotic.

The main differance between Pinochet and Stalin? Nationality and economics. Pinochet was a tyrant evil leader as well, differance is that he was west friendly, therefore more of a "tolerable" dictatorship.
 
The main differance between Pinochet and Stalin? Nationality and economics. Pinochet was a tyrant evil leader as well, differance is that he was west friendly, therefore more of a "tolerable" dictatorship.

Exactly. Until people understand that the word socialist does not automatically mean the USSR or Stalin the quicker we can actually understand the term.
 
Exactly. Until people understand that the word socialist does not automatically mean the USSR or Stalin the quicker we can actually understand the term.

Admittedly i do use the words interchangably to annoy some of my leftist friends, but i dont really mean it. Scary thing is that some do :doh
 
You do realize Hugo Chavez was a devote Catholic right?
I dont get with the rights fetish of thinking that Chavez was some sort of tyrant dictator.

The right has always needed enemies.. Chavez was just one of a long line of boogeymen.
 
Exactly. Until people understand that the word socialist does not automatically mean the USSR or Stalin the quicker we can actually understand the term.

And if we only could understand the term, or the terminology, then we would realize that we're all socialists and anything else is evil scum.
 
The right has always needed enemies.. Chavez was just one of a long line of boogeymen.

True, but the left just has the republicans to look to.
 
True, but the left just has the republicans to look to.

The left dont do the "hate" card nearly as much as the right.. it is the whole basis of right wing ideology.. conflict and strife. Now that aint saying that left wingers have not used the boogieman excuse to gain or maintain power... hell Chavez did it, but compared to the right it is relatively minimal.
 
Back
Top Bottom