The many faces of democracy: Venezuela’s version
I haven’t said anything much so far about Hugo Chavez, who recently won the Venezuelan election handily.
Take a look at what Fausta’s written about it for some perspective. It’s a sorry tale but not an unfamiliar one: demagoguery, Leftism, consolidation of power, shutting down of the opposition. Democracy in name only. And take a look at what Marc Cooper (definitely not a man of the Right), has to say about Chavez; apparently, Chavez is also a Leftist in name only.
But that’s the history of Leftism the world around, is it not? Ye shall always have the rich with you.
Also please read this sad elegy for a lost Venezuela by Daniel at Venezuela News and Views. An excerpt:
Today it was quite a hallucinating day. Oh, I was not surprised. My carefully documented predictions were giving Chavez a victory by 5 points. It might be by almost 20 points when all is counted. But with Chavez it does not matter, even with a single vote majority he would go ahead and try to do as he pleases. There is no brake for him. He is not a democrat. A democrat is always aware of the rights of the minority because a democrat knows that one day he might be that minority. Chavismo has made it clear long ago that all revolves around Chavez and that there is no other option for Venezuela. Elections are a necessary ritual that is extremely expensive but a necessity to justify all sorts of other different abuses. Unfortunate Rosales was not running against Chavez, he was running against a whole state whose complete resources were at the service of the autocrat who needs a regular plebiscite to boost his ego.
And thus today the amateur historian in me realizes that he has had the privilege to witness an historical day, the day that democracy completely left Venezuela. We have lost it.
I believe that democracy is in general a good thing. I’m with Churchill when he said it’s the worst form of government in the world except for all the others. However, democracy is fragile for a reason–it is susceptible to demagogues, relies on an informed citizenry, and can be undermined by tyranny if it doesn’t include strong and enforceable guarantees of civil liberties.
That’s why our form of government–which is actually a republic, not a true democracy –has been so stable and so unusual. Republicanism (and I’m not talking about the political party, I’m talking about the form of government: see this) is one of the greatest inventions of the human race. But that’s quite a bit different from simply allowing people to vote; Republicanism (or a free and well-functioning democracy) requires institutions that prevent a takeover by the forces of tyranny:
Democracies are free only if the people know what freedom is and are consistent in their application of it. If they don’t know this, or more appropriately, if a majority of the people don’t know this, then a democracy could be just as tyrannical as the worst dictator…As should be plain, there is a giant difference between the two systems of government. One of the main fears at the Constitutional Convention of the United States was that the government they created would be too democratic (causing Alexander Hamilton to suggest a restricted monarchy), because it was quite obvious, then and now, that any majority could vote itself anything it wanted, be it property or executions.
That’s why I always assumed that the Iraq War was going to have to include a fairly heavy-handed and lengthy occupation in order to set up the institutions that would foster the freedoms that go with democracy/republicanism. We did it in Japan; MacArthur and his staff wrote the Japanese Constitution, and it survives today without change; thirty-nine articles deal with basic human liberties. If that’s cultural imperialism, I’ll take it.
These guarantees are necessary, or democracy can–and most probably will–fail to be “the worst form of government except all the others;” it will merely take its place alongside all the others.
If this new Che is serious with his economic program, he will destroy the country in several months. He took now Allende’s path, and we all know where it leads. And if he is not serious, the same crowd that voted him in will soon vote him out. People is a blood-hungry beast, and it is very stupid to give them unrealizable promises unless you intend to break them all and tame this beast by terror. In every case a bloodbath in Venezuela is now unavoidable.
I think just as important for MacArthur was allowing the Emperor to remain and pushing for land reform. Democracy or human rights _in Japan_ was never really the problem. It was the Japanese arrogance and belief that it could subjugate and enslave their neighbors because their neighbors were essentially inferior which was the problem. Which was solved by disbanding it’s army. Ditto Germany, in a different context.
Democracy presupposes the ability of citizens to be apart from, and independent of, the central government. In turn, it gives individual dignity to the holders of freedom and democratic rights. It started in Britain with minor lords (basically farmers) who wanted their rights independent of the crown declared. It evolved into the American conception of democracy, which in the beginning depended on land ownership. That in turn brought with the concepts of individual dignity, freedom, etc. etc.
Nowadays, in America, we are still democratic, in the sense that we can vote and make our voices heard. But in a larger sense we are less free than our forbears because we have less control on the things that affect our daily lives, owe all kinds of dues to various central governments (taxes), and in most cases own no property, unless it be the lot our house is built on.
At this point in our history, it is only the IDEA of our freedom that keeps us free. Without that tradition, and without that idea (and, some say, without the second amendment) we would be just another social democracy.
The problem in any attempt to make over the Arab world is the fact that those countries are extremely overpopulated and most people have no property at all. In fact, most people are on welfare of one kind or another. There is no way to sink the roots of democratic tradition in that kind of situation. It should have been obvious, but, however many elections in the Arab world later, they’re still voting for “strong horses”, rich patrons, and family ties. And governments opposed to both the US and Israel.
But our forebearers couldn’t blab on and on and using internet sites. They had to use printed pamphlets, which wasn’t as efficient as a blog comment section.
Our ancestors probably just went down to the local coffee bar (the role of coffee in the Enlightenment is an interesting subject) got tanked on caffeine and snuff, and shot the bull about politics. Here, it all gets written down …..
You write like you think Ché¡vez is a problem, rather than a symptom of a problem (and also, yet again, that “demagoguery, consolidation of power and shutting down opposition” is somehow exclusive to “Leftism”):
I would say you are picking up the “sorry tale” somewhere in the middle. It would more properly begin something like:
“Colonization, exploitation of people and natural resources, fragile and vulnerable economy based on agriculture and later oil exports, concentration of wealth, land and power in the hands of a few, independence, civil war, subsequent rule by series of despots and kleptocrats, democracy, first freely-elected president toppled by military coup, and counter-coups, followed by years of repressive military dictatorship (you guessed it, supported by the US), popular revolt, democracy again, ever more-skewed distribution of wealth and property, rampant poverty (in 1997 the poverty rate was 48% – Ché¡vez was elected in 1999)…”
Hope this isn’t a double-post:
Take a deep breath, Neo, and ask yourself: was Venezuela a prosperous democracy when half of the people lived in poverty and the two dominant parties (by virtue of the ‘Punto Fijo’ pact) agreed to squelch all political alternatives by any means necessary? This is the Venezuela Daniel over at VNV pines for. If the last eight years are any clue, most Venezuelans don’t feel the same way.
Face it: the core of opposition to Chavez is formed by the Venezuelan eocnomic elite. They still live in their high-rise apartments and shop for Gucci bags with the same gusto they always did. What rights of theirs are being violated? I can’t think of any, unless they consider unfettered access to Venezuela’s oil wealth their ‘right’, which many of them do.
If Chavez is trying to clamp down on his opposition, he’s doing a lousy job. Venezuela is replete with opposition newspapers, TV shows, and radio shows, not to mention those massive rallies for his opponent. They operate in public without fear; why doesn’t Big Bad Chavez do something about that?
His public persona can be tacky and his rhetoric inelegant, but he has so far not said or done much which most of the world would ocnsider controversial. Why single him out for special treatment?
Democracy includes the option for the people to get what they voted for. . good and hard. When the oil revenue declines Venezuelans will soon learn the hard way how expensive and demanding a welfare state really is.
In Venezuela “the government raids the central bank when reserves exceed US$29 Billion.” Real interest rates are negative. M2 money supply increased by 45% from the beginning of this year. Inflation is over 15%. Chavez is destroying this country.
Venezuela is the only major oil exporter to be experiencing currency devaluation.
From http://www.emerging-markets-online.com
There is much economic trouble ahead for Venezuela. Few articles in the press have any real idea.
Neo, true liberals share your disgust and frustrations with an imperfect, fallen world.
The rest? Chaff to the wind.
I remind you of another path, Neo. The Greek model and the Spartan Model, and the Roman model. Democracies? Not quite, except for perhaps Athens. What made those systems of government successful was military might and control. For Athens, their Navy. For Sparta, their elite hoplite army. For Rome, their legionaires.
A democracy, prosperous and successful, MUST have a strong martial tradition. It is the darkness to the light. The chaos to the order. Without one or the other, the system collapses, because we need BALANCE in our lives. Choices, but not choices without limits and responsibility. Responsibility, without crushing guilt. Guilt as well as pride. Balance in all things. To quote Planescape Torment.
The United States has become the defender of freedom in this world, not by choice, but by necessity. Japan and Germany and Europe, the whole entire West world, are protected by the United States umbrella of opposite immunity to invasion. Any invasion fleet will be destroyed on the seas, any air raid will be traced back and devastated with exacting precision, and any ground force will be wiped clear of this earth as in Gulf War 1.
This has produced democracies and systems of government that HAVE no martial virtue, let alone traditions. A weakness that the Islamic Jihad, with a very powerful martial tradition, has realized.
Through war, you will see and solve all things, if only because it is the one method by which you can convince a human to do, to be, and to accept anything.
All prejudices, all doubts, all stupid ideologies.
Ymarsakar,
nostalgia – a wistful or excessively sentimental yearning for return to or of some past period or irrecoverable condition.
America may have been the defender of freedom 60 years ago, hard to make that claim today.
Who or what, exactly, are we defending freedom against now?
Our efforts these days are focused soley on a few unstable third-world nations…
Then you can tell me why Europe is still occupied by American troops. Are they third world?
Alex Beech did a very insightful post on why people vote for Chavez.
As for the meme that Chavez is a-charismatic-leader-helping-the-poor-offering-free-health-care-education-adult-literacy-and-job-training-initiatives-that-help-millions-of-Venezuelans, that is a meme – read JB’s link. IF you read the facts, you’d know that it’s part of his image. For starters, while his core constituency are the poor, the elites are still enjoying themselves.
Additionally, Latin Americans as a whole do not understand the difference between a representative republic and a populist democracy.
Chavez controls all institutions in the country (legislative, judiciary, and military) and will amend the constitution again and again.
For information on the electoral process, I invite you to listen to my PJM podcast.
“Europe is still occupied by American troops”
hmmm so they are not democracies but imperial lands of the usa? what are you smoking there?
Hehe, Ymarsakar.
Who are we defending Europe from these days?
The Visigoths, maybe?
Face the facts, America had a hand in creating most of the “problems” we face today.
North Korea, Iran, the Taliban and al Qeada and even Saddam had some “help” from America.
In some cases, we are on our third pass at trying to “fix” these problems.
No doubt, future Americans wil be trying to figure out what to do about the armies we are currently forming in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Training armies and supplying them with weapons rarely adds to the stability of a country…has it ever?
So you can’t tell me why we are in Europe, I see. Just like you can’t explain many other things of import.
In some cases, we are on our third pass at trying to “fix” these problems.
You had better hope we don’t fix these problems, Alphie. It would not be personally beneficial to you.
Nothing can stand in the face of the unbridled and unchained might of the United States. Not even you.
Bastiat gets at this issue -the danger for democracies to devolve into tyranny -in his writings. http://bastiat.org
The fact that one group of people can vote for themselves the appropriation of another group of people’s property or wealth in a democracy doesn’t make it right. Crimes can be perpetuated through laws which the majority vote for. The fact that it is done through the power of the state does not make it morally acceptable. A majority vote lends many actions a moral authority that doesn’t in fact exist. The right to life,liberty, and property is something that should exist independent of the whims of the majority. It was for these considerations that the founders decided on a republic that would be somewhat insulated by extremes of populism.
We did it in Japan; MacArthur and his staff wrote the Japanese Constitution,
True, and they didn’t take a lot of time to do it either. But writing constitutions wasn’t new to Japan, either. ISTR a 19’th century constitution discovered in the rafters of a Japanese farm house not too many years ago. I think the article went on to say that constitution writing was a fairly widespread exercise after the Meiji restoration.
Unbridled and unchained?
All Hugo would have to do is shut off his oil tap and America would look like Darfur in a couple months.
We better be nice to him…
Who are we defending Europe from these days?
Against themselves. However, that job is pretty much done. These days American bases serve as transit points and boost the local economies. Talk of closing bases in Germany raises about as much local outcry as closing a base in the US. Personally, I think moving the bases to Hungary, Bulgaria, or Romania would be a good thing, and those countries could use the influx of business.
yo, justa
trashing the US constitution = working within the system to challenge the status quo and gain a consensus on policy that protects american lives
the constitution is not a suicide pact
If Hugo shut off his oil America would survive. The rise in the oil price would serve to stimulate oil production in other areas of the world.
It would be Venezuela, which has oil as its only main source of income which would quickly disintegrate into a chaotic hell hole. They can’t afford to not sell their oil. They are too poor.
unknown blogger — america is not a diety, so get over it
JB,
America buys 1.5 million barrrels of oil offa Hugo every single day:
http://tinyurl.com/hv8rl
That level of production doesn’t spring up overnight.
Uncle Hugo has us by the short hairs…stop pretending otherwise, please…America can’t survive another fantasy just yet.
An even bigger nightmare…Hugo is one of America’s more stable oil supplier…
“When the oil revenue declines Venezuelans will soon learn the hard way how expensive and demanding a welfare state really is.”
Yeah it’ll be a tough day for oil elites in every oil producing/owning nation -including the U.S. So what?
I guess than the way to go is for Venezuela to let the revenue from a national resource go to a few rich white folks while everybody else starves? Either way – the oil well will run dry.
A ‘welfare’ state is less expensive the last time I checked than an imperialist economy based mainly on acquiring non-renewable resources, exploiting the free market system, and it’s military.
Check it out – it’s way expensive and the human cost(irrelevant I know, but humour me)is through the roof.
“The fact that one group of people can vote for themselves the appropriation of another group of people’s property or wealth in a democracy doesn’t make it right. Crimes can be perpetuated through laws which the majority vote for. The fact that it is done through the power of the state does not make it morally acceptable. A majority vote lends many actions a moral authority that doesn’t in fact exist.”
In theory you are probably right, but with regards to Venezuela oil is a national resource – Chavez was democratically elected because he would benefit the majority of the country by having a national resource owned by the country and it’s people. Nothing immoral in that at all.
And yes majority rule lends many actions a moral authority that don’t exist – the Iraq war, for one. Even though the majority of the American population opposses the war in Iraq and wants troops to withdraw this immoral action is allowed to continue because about a third of the nation voted for Bush.
Now compare the two – one has nationalized the oil industry to bring prosperity to the people of his country by providing health care and edcuation – the other had to lie to his to gain popular support for an illegal war that has seriously handicapped his country.
No comparison, except if you live in a complete fantasy world.
Not you of course, but there’s few out there, you might have heard…
I wonder how long before the world falls into another dark age.
Hugo stops selling us oil. The price goes up by 25 or even 50%. Americans take a couple fewer trips to the movies. They ride their bikes or car pool. It’s not great, but we survive.
Meanwhile Venezuela has lost almost 1/3 of their national income and 80% of their export earnings. Chaos ensues.
Remember, because Oil is fungible for them to stop selling it to the US they would have to stop selling it entirely. Their is no effective way from preventing oil sold to say, France from getting its way into the US market.
from
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html
Venezuela continues to be highly dependent on the petroleum sector, accounting for roughly one-third of GDP, around 80% of export earnings, and over half of government operating revenues. Government revenue also has been bolstered by increased tax collection, which has surpassed its 2005 collection goal by almost 50%. Tax revenue is the primary source of non-oil revenue, which accounts for 53% of the 2006 budget. A disastrous two-month national oil strike, from December 2002 to February 2003, temporarily halted economic activity. The economy remained in depression in 2003, declining by 9.2% after an 8.9% fall in 2002. Output recovered strongly in 2004-2005, aided by high oil prices and strong consumption growth. Venezuela continues to be an important source of crude oil for the US market. Both inflation and unemployment remain fundamental problems.
Hugo could just sell the rights to pump his oil in the future. He doesn’t need to cut back his income at all even if he stops production.
America has been borrowing from its future income for the past 6 years…$1.5 trillion worth of future income, and our economy is still doing great, right?
I should explain the fungible concept more accurately: anywhere that one producer sells oil on the market has an effect on every other producer and consumer. Thus, if Chavez only sells oil to France that means France needs less from Saudi Arabia or wherever they were buying from, which would mean more for everyone else. They can’t prevent the US from having access to their oil or the related effects of the presence of their oil in the markets unless they stop selling it completely – in your scenario that is. And this scenario would bring about Chavez’s dowfall. Chavez would not last 1 year if Venezuela didn’t sell its oil.
“Meanwhile Venezuela has lost almost 1/3 of their national income and 80% of their export earnings. Chaos ensues.”
Not likely. Most improbable.
Not only that but they could sell in directly to China – or just about any other nation in the world that needs it.
I’m not understanding you I guess.
As someone writing from South America (not Venezuela), I have to say that I think the reason why poor people vote for Chavez is not much different than the reason why they voted before for other populist “right wing” politicians: because they receive “help” in the form of food, medical visitations, etc. Temporary “help”, of course, never the only thing that could raise them from poverty, i.e. jobs and a fledging economy. But this is hard to produce, it actually takes intelligence, investment and hard work.
So, all that Chavez or similar demagogues can provide is “asistencialismo” that guarantees two things: a) eternal dependance of the poor classes on the State and b) a big number of “grateful” voters. It is the same method used for decades in the Northeast of Brazil. The rich? They continue rich, perhaps even richer (with government money), provided that they don’t criticize the Leader or delve in politics. I’ve read there seems to be a whole new class of “bolivarian” noveau riche.
Alas, I think that in Latin America most of our politicians, be in the “left”, be it in the so-called “right”, have no political programs other than that kind of cheap populism, when not plain and simple personal profit in mind. The biggest tragedy is that in the 90’s the option to use free-market policies (then in vogue even here) were squandered by crook politicians more interested in their own personal profit than in a successful economy. This is part of the cause of the current leftist backlash.
Chavez is different from others in the sense that he is much more radical and authorithatian (and is striving to obtain what in practice means dictatorial powers), and actually seems to believe the socialist crap that he preaches (or does he?). Well, since socialist economy doesn’t work (as we all who witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall know – perhaps justaguy was too young then), I am not sure what Chavez relies on, other than the high price of oil and the military, to maintain his popularity for 50 years (like his beloved Castro). We’ll see.
“Not only that but they could sell in directly to China – or just about any other nation in the world that needs it.”
This is a very widespread economic issue which many don’t understand – yourself included. Oil is fungible. The marketplace for oil is like a lake with straws going out to it to all the buyers and it is being filled by the producers. Once the oil is produced whether it goes to china or russia or wherever basically has no effect – it is a contribution to the overall level of the lake of oil.
If one country say China consumes all of Venezuela’s oil then that means there is that much less of Saudi or Russian oil that China buys – which would mean that there would be that much more for other nations to buy.
Chavez clearly hates Bush, but even he is a victim of the market. Im sure would love to stop selling the world oil and be independently wealthy and powerful. That’s not reality though. He would be deposed within a year if he stopped production.
Justaguy – you are a first class idiot.
JB,
The real world frequently differs from econ 101 textbooks.
China is currently filling its own strategic oil reserves:
http://tinyurl.com/yl7fko
For the right price, they’d love to buy the oil Hugo sells to America and put it into their tanks.
Speaking of strategic oil reserves, did Bush’s cronies ever put back that oil they got from our strategic oil reserves after Katrina?
Sounds like a hearing topic for the Democrats in January.
Hmmm, if any 2 of the Chinese, the Japanese, the Saudis or the European Central Banks started selling off their mountains of dollars and stopped lending them back via US treasury bonds, that would put a serious dent in your ‘might’, lad.
Dead people can’t spend money. The mob knew this long before you ever came on the scene.
Besides, if they wish to engage in trade war, the US has far bigger coffers, 11 trillion in fact, than the Chinese or the Euros combined.
alphie and justaguy are clearly related clowns, as they both use that arrogant and ignorant style of ending their comments with ellipses. That taunt is used by just about every brainless troll this site has had.
In addition, their rediculous assertions show a complete lack of understanding
Justaguy,
Since Chavez has been in power, he has slowly increased his control over all aspects of political life. He:
– Eliminated Senate so there’ one less instance of power to negotiate with;
– Changed the constitution so that no longer are two-thirds of Congress vote necessary to approve a law, but only simple majority;
– Created a law that in practice permits him to supervise the media and arrest critics;
– Changed the Constitution in order to be reelected yet again (he publicly admitted that he plans to remain in power at least until 2021).
– Controls the military (previously controlled by Congress);
– Changed the flag of the country so that the horse now rides towards the Left (a stupid but very symbolic change);
– Now plans a new Contitutional change for a “Socialist” Venezuela.
– Many other things I don’t know about, but you can easily find out in other sites.
Maybe he’s a democrat, but “democracy” means a very different word to him and to me.
This is a very widespread economic issue which many don’t understand – yourself included. Oil is fungible. The marketplace for oil is like a lake with straws going out to it to all the buyers and it is being filled by the producers. Once the oil is produced whether it goes to china or russia or wherever basically has no effect – it is a contribution to the overall level of the lake of oil.
Fine – I’ll take your word for it but I wouldn’t know – but how does this apply to Chavez? And why would he stop production? And if oil is fungible than logically he will always have a buyer as long as he continues producing.
So what’s the problem?
“Maybe he’s a democrat, but “democracy” means a very different word to him and to me.”
There are some areas in which Chavez can clearly be criticized – I don’t agree with all of the ones you’ve listed, but the point is made.
But the situation in Venezuela was far from perfect when Chavez took over – and the opposition(funded to the tune of millions of dollars – do they allow this in the U.S?)are far from attacking from a level playing field(even so Chavez has show remarkable patience by any stardards).
Latin American in general is going in a completely different direction – you’d probably call it ‘anti-Americanism’.
Whatever it is – get used to it, cause it’s here to stay…
When you have to demonize a four time democratically elected leader who has pulled his country from social and economic collapse(including surviving a U.S sponsered coup), and where the only credible solution to the Venezuelan ‘problem’ is military intervention(including having one of the nations religous leader calling for his assassination) – you have to know that your credibility is absolutely nil….
Justuguy,
I admit my bias, I don’t like Chavez and I tend to agree with Daniel from “News and Views” in his touching post. If you like Chavez and prefer him to Bush, fine, move to Caracas, there would be plenty of Venezuelans happy to replace you.
Venezuela’s poor were poor before, are poor now and (despite the high oil price Chavez is riding on, and his “social” politics), are probably going to continue poor for a long time.
Not necessarily, because crude oil isn’t all the same. While fungibility is a major factor as JB stated, the quality of crude which is produced is probably just as important. If memory serves, Venezuelan crude tends to be higher in sulfur & other contaminants. You can still refine gasoline and other higher priced fuels/lubricants from this crude, but not as much as you could with the “light, sweet crude” that is the industry benchmark. This has an impact on demand which can magnify the effects of a US buying embargo (and incidentally, it also would somewhat mitigate the effects of any Venezuelan embargo).
Oops, I should type faster. I was replying to alphie’s comment about China’s oil purchasing.
My fungible oil “argument” is a commonly accepted fact. It is not an opinion. Just like the earth is round is a commonly accepted fact. This is simply the way that the oil market works.
For the left to argue that America is e would do it. He cin Chavez’s clutches and at his whim because of oil is a complete reversal of the real situation. Chavez’s hatred of Bush and the US was made fairly apparent for the world to see at the UN a couple weeks ago. If there was any way for him to NOT sell oil to the US he would do it. Why doesn’t he do it? Oh yeah, because he can’t. He needs the money and the power, and whether or not he sells it to the US directly it has the same net effect upon supply.
Well, to REALLY throw a monkey wrench into the thread…
If it’s “all about oil” consider the likely scenario of a US military invasion of Venezuela to securea source of crude.
Heck, if we could travel thousands of miles to do in Iraq’s military, a four hour flight from Florida is quite do-able. And who’s going to say gosh-do-you-really-want-to-do-that?
You won’t have to take over the whole miserable country, just the oil fields and shipping ports. Leave the rest of the real estate for drug lords to fight over. Even might consider arming the cocaine growers…and helping them with their trans shipments elsewhere.
yep, sounds feasible.
“My fungible oil “argument” is a commonly accepted fact. It is not an opinion. Just like the earth is round is a commonly accepted fact. This is simply the way that the oil market works.”
I’m guessing it isn’t. Just a hunch…..
If justa’s argument was valid, he would find someplace that likens him more than wasting his time at Neo’s site.
While oil is fungible, the different sorts of crude matters in that only the US has the refining capacity to deal with Chavez’s extremely sulphurous crude oil. So. He is going to have a rather hard time selling it to other people, he would have to take a cut on the price if the US refuses to refine his crude.
Unlike America, China is actually building new oil refineries:
http://tinyurl.com/vxe92
Converting a few of them to process Hugo’s Latin brew would be no problem…as long as they signed a long term delivery deal.
Hugo’s oil represent about 7% of America’s total oil consumption.
Replacing it wouldn’t be easy.
Hugo is the dealer and we are the addicts…any rationalization that we are somehow in control is…
…typical behavior for addicts.
Maybe we do need socialized medicine so the trolls can all go back on their xanax.
Rational person: “Venezuela isn’t really a functioning democracy now.”
Troll: “They’re not that bad. It’s the US’s fault anyway!”
RP: “I’m not talking about the history, though I disagree with that assertion. Let’s look at the situation now…”
Troll: “Pat Roberts wants to kill them! He and George Bush both! Also, we are wiretapping our people and the Constitution is in shambles!”
RP: “…”
“Hugo’s oil represent about 7% of America’s total oil consumption”
and. . .
“roughly one-third of GDP for Venezuela, around 80% of export earnings, and over half of government operating revenues. ” (from the CIA factbook)
So, alphie is making the argument that losing 7% of US oil imports would be worse for the US than for Venezuela to lose 33.3% of their entire GDP and 80% of their export earnings.
There is no rational world where this argument makes any sense.
Do you know how much money the US economy would have to lose for it to be 33.3% of US GDP? It would be around $4 trillion. So, if Venezuela stops exporting oil then the equivalent effect to their economy would be that of the US economy losing $4 trillion dollars. Wow.
I am going to try to explain this in the simplest manner I know how.
Let’s say Venezuela stops selling its oil to the US and ships it directly to China. The US would then like to increase imports from somewhere else in order to offset the loss of Venezuelan imports. Where does this come from? Well, since China is now consuming the oil from Venezuela that was going to the US China now doesn’t have to buy oil from wherever it was buying it from before it got Venezuela’s oil that the US was getting. So now the US is able to get oil from someplace that now isn’t able to ship it to China because China doesn’t need it because they are getting Venezuela’s oil. Oil is fungible. Every addition to the supply has an effect on total worldwide supply. Thus, by selling their oil only to China, Venezuela has an effect on Chinese demand in other areas, which means that it frees up other oil producers which were formerly sending their oil to China and now have no buyer because China doesn’t need them. These oil producers then send their oil to the US. Venezuela can’t cut off the US unless it completely stops production because the oil that they send to other countries will cause these countries to reduce their demand from countries that don’t have any political motives. And unless the entire world decides not to send oil to the US then Venezuela will be unable to have an effect upon total oil supply unless it reduces its exports. Get it?
If you don’t get it now you never will.
JB:
“If you don’t get it now you never will.”
I believe you’ve nailed alphie and justaguy completely.
Folks, it is ridicule to ask themselves if Chaves is true, sincere defender of poor or a demagogue, a puppet of rich elites. The both can be true. We have heard this type of propaganda from Hitler, but tycoons felt themselves very well in the Third Reich. The real problem is whether he is going follow Peron’s track or Castro’s track. This will be military dictatorship in both cases, but if he is true leftist, he will nationalize not only oil business, but banking system too, and to do so he should seek popular support of poor against elites. This would destroy economy in months. If he will choose Peron’s option, he would follow Putin’s policy of creating oligarchial rule with suppressing of all shreds of democracy and suppressing poor as well. Then it will take years of stagflation before final bankruptcy of state. But in any case misery and oppression are unavoidable.
“China’s increasing appetite is oustripping increases in capacity.
If you can’t grasp that, then you will continue to believe in your “fungible” hypothesis.”
Thanks for your kind permission. I would indeed like to continue to believe that oil does not magically disappear when it’s not sold to the US. The oil fairies that carry the oil off keep leaving stains on my carpet.
Away with you oil fairies! I disbelieve! I DISBELIEVE!
Justaguy has been reduced to Chomsky-esque talking points which are irrelevant to the issue at hand. Your ramblings may find a home among your weak-minded friends but they ring hollow here.
Every country with nationalized oil industry giving 80% of hard currency is a candidat to stagflation. Inflation rate in Venezuela already is over 15%, and real interest rates are negative.
“If you don’t get it now you never will.”
What I don’t get is that if the fungiable theory is true than why is Bush admin so concerned about what Chavez does? I mean you don’t send millions of dollars to fund the oily opposition in Venezuela or openly support the coup of a democratically elected leader because he’s a little to the left, or starts a national health care program.
Or maybe you do.
But you know, as much as some of the real hard types here will salivate at the prospect of smashing some commie pinko, I’m doubtin that….
calling Chavez “a little to the left” is like calling Mao “a little bit Stalinist.”
Pete: Would you call Hong Kong a victim of British Imperial interests as well? How about the United States – oh yeah, remember, the US started as a British colony? How about Australia and New Zealand and Singapore?
I’ll defintely agree that the legacy of colonialism is problematic in many places, but it’s one sided to only look at those problems and not the good things the Colonialists created as well.
“Like Slavery”
Sorry, but that is infinitely uninformed.
You have reached new heights of hypocrisy, but then,that is the typical trajectory of those grasping for some last straw of intellectual rigor. In this strange world you have constructed the Iraqi purple fingers are a great expression of the peoples will but a Chavez landslide can only be some tyranny of the majority.It’s one thing to not be overly burdened with perception, but to seek out subjects on which you obviously have no direct knowledge is irresponsible.I just returned from Venezuela and the situation there is simple enough for even some of you folks. There are a few “haves” and there are lots of “have nots”.The “haves” generally have lighter skin and vote for the business candidate that promises to protect their privelege. The “have nots” vote for a charismatic,dark skinned leader who has begun re-distributing the petro-wealth to those who have never benefited before.If you had even the slightest ability to imagine yourself in those positions you would realize you would vote exactly as they did and consider the process exactly as legitimate as they did.
Trout, re-distribution of any wealth never solves economic problems, it aggravates them. Nobody will invest his money in a country where this “re-distribution” is under way. And without investment all branches of industry, oil included, will deteriorate. This is well known to economists “Holland disease”: oil revenue are not earned, because oil prices are speculative, they are from ten to twenty times bigger than costs of oil extraction. And oil industry is not labour-intensive, it can employ only small fraction of existing work force. So you need to develop other, labour-intensive industries to fight unemployment. And this is impossible without investment. You have vicious circle: oil industry saps all free money from economy because of higher interest rates, and all other sectors of economy shrink. You have similtaneously excess of money in circulation, so inflation, and stagnant economy. This is called stagflation, and no country is known to overcome this malady without liberalization of economy, that is measures exactly opposite to nationalization and re-distribution.
Chomsky is not a linguist, he is an academic fraud. His only contribution to linguistics is postulating of existence of some mystical “inner structures” in any language which are not observable in principle, like aether or phlogiston. This is not a science, this is metaphysics, and rather lousy one. (I am a linguist.) Chomsky as economist – this simply ridicule. And Nobel committee has, evidently, another opinion about Friedman’s accomplishments. I have met a lot of so called “economists” in Russia; most of them are complete ignoramuses unable understand even basic notions of cybernetics or self-organization theory. My schoolfellow, who specially visited Chile to learn about their economic reforms, told me, that in 80s they, young mathematician working in Gosplan (Central governmental agency planning all socialist economy), already understood that every guy with PhD in economics and no mathematical background above elementary statistics is a fool. And if he is a member of Academy of Sciences in this discipline – he is a complete idiot. We have a joke in Russia about re-distribution: What is the main problem with communists? – They learned only a half of arithmetic, how to subtract and divide; the second half, how to add and multiply, they will never learn.
This deleted comment (and many others) was made by old troll stevie, posting anonymously this time.
Loki,
Or is it gourney?
The SCOTUS ruled to stop the Florida Supreme Court from essentially making up election law as they went along. The FSC was blatantly ignoring their own election laws.
Gore set this all in motion by taking it to the Courts. But I’m sure that even if it was shown over and over that the FSC was being unconstitutional, had Gore won, everything would have been right with the world.
Everyone that has examined the recounts, including 4 or 5 major US newspapers, said that Gore would have lost.
One thing I will give that scoundrel Nixon, he didn’t throw the country into turmoil over voter fraud in 1960, and there was substantial indication of it in Texas, Illinois, and Massachusetts.
Democracies are not perfect.
And what degree does Chomsky hold in economics?
“Trust me mate – you aren’t intellectually fit enough to wear the man’s dirty underwear lol….”
By the same token, you aren’t fit to be with decent people after that remark.
I know I am guilty of this too, but all this repulsive, nasty, indecent name calling of people simply because you don’t like their opinion needs to stop. Are you all really this trashy in real, and I do mean real, life?
The anonymity of the internet allows not only the worst, uncivilized behavior I have seen or read in my life, but promotes a twisted psychology where we all seem to believe we no longer have to be decent human beings.
Anyway, I have had enough of this repulsiveness. I was raised better than this.
Have fun flaming me. Have fun being vile.
Gourney,
Hope you’ve been well too. Like I said before, you’re a decent human being. Best to you.
Outta here.
You’re all pathetic, bickering children.
I hope Neo deletes all the BS. This is not Usenet. Time to take out the trash. 😉
Sergy, I have been researching investment in Venezuela and it seems to be on the rise along with production outside the oil sector. You are right that inflation is a problem, as could be stagflation, but i would suggest investments through oil money in areas such as education (they have eliminated illiteracy, have free university, etc) and health/ dental/eye care will have long term positive effects in the economy.Infrastructure projects (roads,communication,water) and tourism industry investment will help diversify the economy.
JB, thanks for the explanations, but it would take a concrete bunker buster bomb to get through past some people’s defenses here. You know whom I’m refering to.
Loki a decent human being? That’s only if you see him with his mask on.
If you bait him to exposing himself by giving him the impression that anything he says will be private, then well… then go here to see some of what happened when he commented.
Link
Frothing at the mouth is usually a sign of rabies in animals. What do you do with rabid animals?
Pingback:gameboys 2007
I’ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)