Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Hugo Chavez glosified by the Left

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:25:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There is nothing quite like oil wealth to improve ling standards and make an authoritarian government popular. Saudi Arabia shows that oil wealth works in these respects.

Hugo Chavez, the authoritarian ruler of Venezuela who died recently, is being glorified by the Left. Hollywood celebs have gushed praise:

'I mourn a great hero to the majority of his people and those who struggle throughout the world for a place," [Oliver] Stone said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. http://entertainment.nbcnews.com...

That reflects the usual far left thinking expressed by Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, et al. Jimmy Carter praised Chavez' "bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment."

Since Chavez took over Venezuela oil production has dropped, living standards have dropped, and freedom of the press has been strongly curtailed. Chavez amassed a personal fortune of around $2 billion, and his cronies are estimated to have siphoned $100 billion out of the economy. He was firmly allied with Iran and supporters of terrorism.

So why is he being idolized? Thuggery done in the name of socialism doesn't count as a negative with the far Left. All that really counts is glowing words of praise for socialist ideals, hatred of the U.S., and hatred of free enterprise. They don't sweat the details.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 12:14:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, there's definitely an element of hypocrisy involved here. Some of the things that the US has orchestrated in Latin America have been atrocious, but opposition to that doesn't transfigure an authoritarian carbon prince into some saint of liberalism.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 1:32:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are to the left as Clint Eastwood is to the right.

Not our fault the senile b@stards won't keep their opinions to themselves.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 3:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Speaking as a paid up member of the far left, from what I know of Chavez (which isn't an awful lot), it's definitely a mixed picture. (Hopefully recent events will give me an excuse to read about him in a book I got a while ago)

http://www.amazon.com...

On the negative side, when groups like human rights watch criticise Chavez, everyone should take it seriously, and some of the apparent abuses of power by Chavez in his later years have been bordering on tyranny. His imprisonment of a judge being just one example of this. His embrace of leaders like that of Iran and Libya is also pretty disgraceful as well (though, like Cuba, somewhat understandable, given context).

On the positive side, regardless of the picture the US paints, the poor majority have unquestionably supported him for years, returning him to power after an attempted coup and supprting to thumping electoral victories. His redistribution of wealth has seemingly benefited those who he was elected to represent, and in the context of Latin America, with the destructive effect US foreign policy has had in places in Chile and Cuba, this is remarkable.

The only thing I would say is that the worst thing that could happen for Latin America would be for the US to intervene. It doesn't exactly have a good track record, particularly in this part of the world.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 4:26:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hugo Chavez was a controversial political figure. He could be easily painted as a dictator who cared about no one but himself. He can also be portrayed as a saint who delivered the blessing to the darkness corner of the world. Hugo Chavez was glorified by the left no more than demonized by the right. Each political spectrum simply attempts to describe him in an attempt to fit its own ideology.

Did the man stand a Titian when he was alive? Of course. Should he be considered a great leader? Well, only time can tell.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 12:42:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:32:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are to the left as Clint Eastwood is to the right.

Not our fault the senile b@stards won't keep their opinions to themselves.

You see the sequel to Wall Street?

Oliver Stone doesn't talk to empty space. He perfectly summed up what happened in the financial crisis, and did so in a mildly entertaining fashion.

What was the matter with Chavez if you were South American? The elections were more open in Venezuela than they were here. The people voted for him, and sure...oil helps, but so do smart financial decisions and assisting your neighbors from being owned, then raped constantly by the IMF.

Emerging nations have leaders who are not perfect. Chavez wasn't, in any way, perfect, but if you were South American, and especially Venezuelan, I can't think of a better advocate than Chavez.

He was hardly a dictator and things were better there than they were when he went into office. What else can one judge a leader by than how much they improve a situation and also how they handle adversity. By both measures, Chavez was a hell of a lot better than anything we've had recently.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:25:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 1:32:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are to the left as Clint Eastwood is to the right.

Not our fault the senile b@stards won't keep their opinions to themselves.

Clint Eastwood is not the equivalent of Sean Penn or Oliver Stone.

Eastwood is quite centrist in his views, he merely leans right.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 4:39:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:25:24 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:32:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are to the left as Clint Eastwood is to the right.

Not our fault the senile b@stards won't keep their opinions to themselves.


Clint Eastwood is not the equivalent of Sean Penn or Oliver Stone.

Eastwood is quite centrist in his views, he merely leans right.

Clint was a pretty decent mayor (of a bedroom community of insanely rich people who golf all day), but c'mon...even he has said he's kinda gone off the deep end.

He simply doesn't care, which is kinda awesome. I hope I can go senile as gracefully.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:27:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 4:39:34 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:25:24 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:32:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are to the left as Clint Eastwood is to the right.

Not our fault the senile b@stards won't keep their opinions to themselves.


Clint Eastwood is not the equivalent of Sean Penn or Oliver Stone.

Eastwood is quite centrist in his views, he merely leans right.

Clint was a pretty decent mayor (of a bedroom community of insanely rich people who golf all day), but c'mon...even he has said he's kinda gone off the deep end.

He simply doesn't care, which is kinda awesome. I hope I can go senile as gracefully.

It'll be hard for you to go senile when you are already there to begin with. But, I'm sure the non transition will be graceful.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:33:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:27:17 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:39:34 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:25:24 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:32:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are to the left as Clint Eastwood is to the right.

Not our fault the senile b@stards won't keep their opinions to themselves.


Clint Eastwood is not the equivalent of Sean Penn or Oliver Stone.

Eastwood is quite centrist in his views, he merely leans right.

Clint was a pretty decent mayor (of a bedroom community of insanely rich people who golf all day), but c'mon...even he has said he's kinda gone off the deep end.

He simply doesn't care, which is kinda awesome. I hope I can go senile as gracefully.


It'll be hard for you to go senile when you are already there to begin with. But, I'm sure the non transition will be graceful.

Says the "economics major" who has now put on display for everyone his absolute misunderstanding of BOTH Comparative Advantage and Diminishing Returns.

Let me, as the lone senile person here, be the first to tell you that senile beats retarded every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

What day is it again, today? (don't forget to spring ahead, kids...)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:36:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:33:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:27:17 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:39:34 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:25:24 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:32:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are to the left as Clint Eastwood is to the right.

Not our fault the senile b@stards won't keep their opinions to themselves.


Clint Eastwood is not the equivalent of Sean Penn or Oliver Stone.

Eastwood is quite centrist in his views, he merely leans right.

Clint was a pretty decent mayor (of a bedroom community of insanely rich people who golf all day), but c'mon...even he has said he's kinda gone off the deep end.

He simply doesn't care, which is kinda awesome. I hope I can go senile as gracefully.


It'll be hard for you to go senile when you are already there to begin with. But, I'm sure the non transition will be graceful.

Says the "economics major" who has now put on display for everyone his absolute misunderstanding of BOTH Comparative Advantage and Diminishing Returns.

Let me, as the lone senile person here, be the first to tell you that senile beats retarded every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

What day is it again, today? (don't forget to spring ahead, kids...)

I completely understand both comparitive advantage and diminishing returns. Stop projecting your own ignorance in economics onto me.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 6:49:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:36:20 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:33:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:27:17 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:39:34 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:25:24 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:32:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are to the left as Clint Eastwood is to the right.

Not our fault the senile b@stards won't keep their opinions to themselves.


Clint Eastwood is not the equivalent of Sean Penn or Oliver Stone.

Eastwood is quite centrist in his views, he merely leans right.

Clint was a pretty decent mayor (of a bedroom community of insanely rich people who golf all day), but c'mon...even he has said he's kinda gone off the deep end.

He simply doesn't care, which is kinda awesome. I hope I can go senile as gracefully.


It'll be hard for you to go senile when you are already there to begin with. But, I'm sure the non transition will be graceful.

Says the "economics major" who has now put on display for everyone his absolute misunderstanding of BOTH Comparative Advantage and Diminishing Returns.

Let me, as the lone senile person here, be the first to tell you that senile beats retarded every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

What day is it again, today? (don't forget to spring ahead, kids...)


I completely understand both comparitive advantage

No you don't (sh!t...you can't even spell it) - http://www.debate.org...

and diminishing returns.

and, no you don't.

http://www.debate.org...

Stop projecting your own ignorance in economics onto me.

If this is your idea of knowing sh!t, you could definitely use some of my ignorance. You need a ton of ignorance, because you don't know sh!t and your belief about my ignorance is pretty much a compensation method for your arrogant, tiny wiener, sports car he doesn't know how to drive properly self and your inability to admit you're wrong about anything because it will simply verify how pathetic you are in your real life.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 8:07:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:49:20 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:36:20 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:33:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:27:17 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:39:34 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:25:24 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 3/9/2013 1:32:46 PM, Wnope wrote:
Hollywood actors like Sean Penn and Oliver Stone are to the left as Clint Eastwood is to the right.

Not our fault the senile b@stards won't keep their opinions to themselves.


Clint Eastwood is not the equivalent of Sean Penn or Oliver Stone.

Eastwood is quite centrist in his views, he merely leans right.

Clint was a pretty decent mayor (of a bedroom community of insanely rich people who golf all day), but c'mon...even he has said he's kinda gone off the deep end.

He simply doesn't care, which is kinda awesome. I hope I can go senile as gracefully.


It'll be hard for you to go senile when you are already there to begin with. But, I'm sure the non transition will be graceful.

Says the "economics major" who has now put on display for everyone his absolute misunderstanding of BOTH Comparative Advantage and Diminishing Returns.

Let me, as the lone senile person here, be the first to tell you that senile beats retarded every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

What day is it again, today? (don't forget to spring ahead, kids...)


I completely understand both comparitive advantage

No you don't (sh!t...you can't even spell it) - http://www.debate.org...

and diminishing returns.

and, no you don't.

http://www.debate.org...

Stop projecting your own ignorance in economics onto me.

If this is your idea of knowing sh!t, you could definitely use some of my ignorance. You need a ton of ignorance, because you don't know sh!t and your belief about my ignorance is pretty much a compensation method for your arrogant, tiny wiener, sports car he doesn't know how to drive properly self and your inability to admit you're wrong about anything because it will simply verify how pathetic you are in your real life.

Ya. You are just wasting all of our time. Nothing I have said in any of the comments you have linked to suggest any lack of understanding of these concepts. They were general comments. You just try to read everything in a way that makes your opponents look bad.

You went apeshit when I said "comparative advantage applies to labor too". To most people (people that are smart), that is a simple, general comment that really doesn't mean much.

To you, it shows how I know nothing about economics at all. That is a sad reflection of you. You are the one ignorant in economics. You show that everyday when you advocate your idiotic statist policies and defend your statist idols (Obama) only to criticize them when they aren't being statist enough.

You are a fool in every sense of the word. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you wouldn't be able to say things like I don't understand comparative advantage. I do and I have said nothing to suggest otherwise. But, of course, in your usual ways, you go on making a fool of yourself.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:21:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
May I say that you are not responding to me at a rather furious pace today.

It's probably because you flub up both those concepts quite well in the links I provided and now are trying to bury that fact...typical.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:02:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
" Unemployment has dropped from 14.5% of the total labour force in 1999 to 7.6% in 2009
" Population has increased from 23,867,000 in 1999 to 29,278,000 in 2011. The annual population growth was 1.5% in 2011 compared with 1.9% in 1999
" GDP per capita has risen from $4,105 to $10,801 in 2011
" As you can see in the graphic chart, Venezuela's inflation has fluctuated since 1999. Inflation now stands at 31.6% compared with 23.6% in 1999
" Venezuela has a complicated history concerning currency exchange rates. Compared with 1999 when the exchange rate was under one bolivar to the US dollar, the latest figures from Reuters place it at 4.3 Bolivars to one dollar
" Poverty has decreased - in 1999, 23.4% of the population were recorded as being in extreme poverty, this fell to 8.5% in 2011 according to official government figures. [Non-extreme Poverty rate was about 60% in 1999.]
" Infant mortality is now lower than in 1999 - from a rate of 20 per 1,000 live births then to a rate of 13 per 1,000 live births in 2011
" Violence has been a key concern in Venezuela for some time - figures from the UNODC state that the murder rate has risen since 1999. In 2011 the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 population was 45.1 compared with 25.0 just twelve years earlier
" Oil exports have boomed - Venezuela has one of the top proven oil reserves in the world and in 2011 Opec put the country's net oil export revenues at $60bn. In 1999 it stood at $14.4bn
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 3:07:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 2:02:27 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
" Unemployment has dropped from 14.5% of the total labour force in 1999 to 7.6% in 2009
" Population has increased from 23,867,000 in 1999 to 29,278,000 in 2011. The annual population growth was 1.5% in 2011 compared with 1.9% in 1999
" GDP per capita has risen from $4,105 to $10,801 in 2011
" As you can see in the graphic chart, Venezuela's inflation has fluctuated since 1999. Inflation now stands at 31.6% compared with 23.6% in 1999
" Venezuela has a complicated history concerning currency exchange rates. Compared with 1999 when the exchange rate was under one bolivar to the US dollar, the latest figures from Reuters place it at 4.3 Bolivars to one dollar
" Poverty has decreased - in 1999, 23.4% of the population were recorded as being in extreme poverty, this fell to 8.5% in 2011 according to official government figures. [Non-extreme Poverty rate was about 60% in 1999.]
" Infant mortality is now lower than in 1999 - from a rate of 20 per 1,000 live births then to a rate of 13 per 1,000 live births in 2011
" Violence has been a key concern in Venezuela for some time - figures from the UNODC state that the murder rate has risen since 1999. In 2011 the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 population was 45.1 compared with 25.0 just twelve years earlier
" Oil exports have boomed - Venezuela has one of the top proven oil reserves in the world and in 2011 Opec put the country's net oil export revenues at $60bn. In 1999 it stood at $14.4bn

BUT BUT BUT... malcolm sez chavez was better than ANY alternative so sux to be venezuelan.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 3:53:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 3:07:27 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 3/11/2013 2:02:27 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
" Unemployment has dropped from 14.5% of the total labour force in 1999 to 7.6% in 2009
" Population has increased from 23,867,000 in 1999 to 29,278,000 in 2011. The annual population growth was 1.5% in 2011 compared with 1.9% in 1999
" GDP per capita has risen from $4,105 to $10,801 in 2011
" As you can see in the graphic chart, Venezuela's inflation has fluctuated since 1999. Inflation now stands at 31.6% compared with 23.6% in 1999
" Venezuela has a complicated history concerning currency exchange rates. Compared with 1999 when the exchange rate was under one bolivar to the US dollar, the latest figures from Reuters place it at 4.3 Bolivars to one dollar
" Poverty has decreased - in 1999, 23.4% of the population were recorded as being in extreme poverty, this fell to 8.5% in 2011 according to official government figures. [Non-extreme Poverty rate was about 60% in 1999.]
" Infant mortality is now lower than in 1999 - from a rate of 20 per 1,000 live births then to a rate of 13 per 1,000 live births in 2011
" Violence has been a key concern in Venezuela for some time - figures from the UNODC state that the murder rate has risen since 1999. In 2011 the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 population was 45.1 compared with 25.0 just twelve years earlier
" Oil exports have boomed - Venezuela has one of the top proven oil reserves in the world and in 2011 Opec put the country's net oil export revenues at $60bn. In 1999 it stood at $14.4bn

BUT BUT BUT... malcolm sez chavez was better than ANY alternative so sux to be venezuelan.

First of all, I no sez that.

I said things are better in Venezuela now than when Chavez was first elected.

Using only the statistics from above -

The unemployment rate has been halved, despite a total gain of 6 million in population.

Infant mortality has dropped by 35% (this is a key indicator in health care as well as life expectancy, because the biggest gains you get in life expectancy come from women and children making it through child birth, and penicillin.)

Poverty is down 300%.

Oil exports revenue was up 400% (and they ain't runnin' out of the stuff any time soon, though they will eventually and the next leadership group needs to concentrate on using the income and transitioning some of the economy away from the oil industry ASAP).

Inflation was up, and those levels of inflation are dangerous, but they were already in the hyperinflation zone at 20%, so I don't see that as too big of a detractor for Chavez, though obviously, this needs to be gotten under control, somewhat, though if the inflation is simply due to the extreme per capita income gains one gets from a 400% jump in their country's income from their chief export, this number may not be concerning at all and may very well get under control once their growth stabilizes.

The murder rate is certainly an issue, though. I'd need to see the rates in the countries that border Venezuela over that same period to make a judgement either way on that one.

Let's say the murder rate is a negative for Chavez, though, as well as inflation.

That's still, when including the drop in growth/population stabilization (poor placement, but I'm not suggesting murder is effective for this...simply forgot to mention the 1.9% to 1.5% growth rate previously) as a positive, that leaves us with:

1. Negatives

higher murder rate (nearly double)
high inflation (75% increase)

2. Positives

200% drop in unemployment
300% drop in poverty (coincidence? me thinks not...)
better healthcare
stable population growth
250% increase in GDP per capita.

They definitely need to work on one aspect of the "life" part, but they seem to have made great leaps forward in the "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" portions of the program.

Did you read the same stats I did, because I'm pretty sure you were just trying to make fun of me whilst proving my previous comments to be correct.

As I ACTUALLY said, he's not perfect, but Venezuela could have done worse and he left the place in a better condition than when he found it.

At the very least, you gotta consider that a passing grade.

http://www.bigbrandsystem.com...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 8:51:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 11:25:00 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
There is nothing quite like oil wealth to improve ling standards and make an authoritarian government popular. Saudi Arabia shows that oil wealth works in these respects.

Hugo Chavez, the authoritarian ruler of Venezuela who died recently, is being glorified by the Left. Hollywood celebs have gushed praise:

'I mourn a great hero to the majority of his people and those who struggle throughout the world for a place," [Oliver] Stone said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. http://entertainment.nbcnews.com...

That reflects the usual far left thinking expressed by Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, et al. Jimmy Carter praised Chavez' "bold assertion of autonomy and independence for Latin American governments and for his formidable communication skills and personal connection with supporters in his country and abroad to whom he gave hope and empowerment."

Since Chavez took over Venezuela oil production has dropped, living standards have dropped, and freedom of the press has been strongly curtailed. Chavez amassed a personal fortune of around $2 billion, and his cronies are estimated to have siphoned $100 billion out of the economy. He was firmly allied with Iran and supporters of terrorism.

So why is he being idolized? Thuggery done in the name of socialism doesn't count as a negative with the far Left. All that really counts is glowing words of praise for socialist ideals, hatred of the U.S., and hatred of free enterprise. They don't sweat the details.

Not all of the left liked him, approved of his conduct, etc.

As a liberal, I can say with confidence that Chavez was a tyrant and megalomaniac whose death is a benefit to the rest of humanity.
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 8:59:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's a good thing our economy isn't dependent on things like oil that can be nationalized...oh wait... how much did tarp cost?

300% inflation? Great, everyone is rich when you have so much money, right?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 10:26:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Notice how the $2 billion in personal wealth and $100 billion in wealth siphoned to cronies are uniformly ignored as irrelevant by the Left. Capitalist who get rich by providing things people want are considered unpardonably reprehensible, while theft done by an admire dictator is cause for a change of subject.

The statistics from The Guardian need a lot of context. Oil revenues rose from about $15 billion in 1999 to over $60 billion today, a factor of four growth. The price of oil in 1999 was about $14 per barrel, today it is around $100 per barrel -- a factor of more than seven. That means production has dropped by about 40%. That's the typical pattern for the nationalization of oil. While production drops, production costs rise to cover the payoffs to the ruling class of thugs.

When the incredible inflation is taken into account, people are no better off under Chavez. Drug-ridden Colombia has actually made more economic progress.

The Guardian cites basically UN sources for much of their data. The UN, always friendly to despots, relies mostly on data given to them by the government of the country. Health data is notoriously bogus.

What is true and important is that Chavez was and is genuinely popular. That's the result of a controlled press and an effective political machine. For example, Kim is genuinely popular in North Korea, because everyone knows that only Dear Leader stands between the people and a horrible takeover by evil forces. The Left doesn't care about facts, it's about conforming with socialist dogma.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 12:28:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Comparing Venezeula to Columbia that gets $430+ MILLION PER YEAR in foreign-aid from the US as well as Mexico that gets $400+ MILLION PER YEAR yet Mexico/Columbia
has
so many poor & lack of gov services that they resort to the drug-trade is laughable
--without the $400-430+ million per year in foreign aid (almost HALF A BILLION each per year) from the USA, Mexico & Columbia would collapse or be in far worse shape.

If the US gave $400+ MILLION per year to Venezeula too, maybe Venezuela would look better too?

Your supposed 40% drop in POTENTIAL oil revenue doesn't take into account that Chavez gives away FREE oil to the poor in his own & other countries so that profit/revenues isn't maximized -oh noes!

That is the POINT of socializing it -to give the oil free or reduced cost to the masses instead of extracting maximum profit for the wealthiest few owners.

Besides the UN, there's multiplle sources like Drigo's own links from the RIGHT-WING WORLD BANK that even them admit Chavez had significant positive indicators

More so, here's from the well-reputed US Center for Economic Policy that shows huge signficant effects vs. your rightwing rhetoric ..

http://www.cepr.net...

Foreign aid to Columbia & US: http://en.wikipedia.org...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 10:10:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/12/2013 12:28:44 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Comparing Venezeula to Columbia that gets $430+ MILLION PER YEAR in foreign-aid from the US as well as Mexico that gets $400+ MILLION PER YEAR yet Mexico/Columbia ...

So it's better to get $430 million in foreign aid from the US than $60 billion in oil revenues? How does that work?

I started out this thread by pointing out that having vast oil revenues is always a wonderful thing for a country. But no one says that Saudi Arabia has high living standards and lots of social program because Saudi leadership is so outstanding. They have riches from oil, and that is all there is to it. In the case of Chavez, relatively little reach the people yet all improvements are attributed to his wonderful leadership. With a 7X increase in the price of oil, a 4.3% growth rate is amazing because it so low, not because it is so high.

Chavez gave a tiny amount of oil to poor people in New England as a publicity stunt a few years ago. Utterly negligible. He gets top dollar world market prices for oil; the story is what happens to the money after it gets into the country.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 10:55:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 10:26:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Notice how the $2 billion in personal wealth

Prove to me that Chavez had personal wealth of $2 billion and that you haven't just read a bullsh!t statistic perpetrated by someone who has no idea what Chavez's personal wealth was, because so far, NO ONE knows what Chavez's personal wealth was.

So yeah, I ignored it, because it is complete and utter nonsense.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 11:09:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 2:08:49 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Check the source and its sources: http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Sources - World Bank, INE, Thompson Reuters, UNODC, IMF, EIA
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 4:37:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course the $2 billion personal wealth is only an estimate.

One estimate of the wealth of Chavez and his family that's often cited is from "Criminal Justice International Associates (CJIA), a risk assessment and global analysis firm in Miami, estimated in a recent report that the Ch"vez Fr"as family in Venezuela has "amassed a fortune" similar to that of the Castro brothers in Cuba."
http://newsfromvenezuela.tumblr.com...

There are lots of reports of the trappings of great wealth. National Public Radio reported back in 2007 that "During his eight years in office, Chavez's family members have managed to increase their personal power and wealth." The article describes the lavish lifestyle of family members. http://www.npr.org...

A New York Times story "State Ruled by Crime and Chavez Family" http://www.nytimes.com...; described the power and wealth of the family in general terms.

A long article at a site backed by the Ford Foundation for the purpose of exposing Third World corruption gives details, including:

Nearly $30 billion is missing from a Venezuelan national development fund controlled by President Hugo Chavez, who appears to have diverted some of the missing money to his political allies in other countries, while much of the rest remains unaccounted for.

The money came from a $69.4 billion fund for development aid, known as Fonden, which is designed to take public money, largely from Venezuela"s state-run oil company and its Central Bank, and use it on domestic development projects such as highways, schools, factories and hospitals.

For years in Venezuela, critics of the president have nicknamed Fonden "Chavez"s slush fund." Information only now becoming public shows that is not far off the mark: El Fondo de Desarrollo Nacional, as it is formally known, operates outside the Venezuelan National Assembly"s budget process and largely beyond public scrutiny, answerable only to a board of directors and to Chavez himself.

http://100r.org...