[fluff]

In short: I think he's overly subsidizing fuel, and should instead be pumping that money into further infrastructure investments.

Now at length:True, cheap oil spurs the economy but at their prices he's throwing away money that might not always be coming in. If they don't build a non-oil reliant economy, they will be crushed by the IMF (just like in the 90s) when those prices drop and Chavez needs cash to support his programs.

Wikipedia says it better than I do:


I'd argue with the quote a bit in that health and primary education are fundamental to Chavez's policies as I understand them, and both critical to organic growth. Additionally, he claims to be keeping a healthy reserve of cash from the oil income to buffer a price drop. However, I just don't see him making the large infrastructure investments, particularly in transportation, energy, and housing, that he needs to and that's exactly what Venezuela needs to do themselves since those are the investments that normally put developing countries into crippling debt.

So effectively what you are saying is that whilst he has improved health & education, reduced national debt and poverty he has yet to turn Venezuela into an economic powerhouse.

Given that we must only blame Chavez for things that he can control then we must assume that you expect him to make that investment from government funds, therefore either spending all his income, or potentially increasing taxes on the rich or industry; neither of which groups wish to play ball as he's already cut into their pie substantially.

I think you'd find it hard to argue that Chavez has been bad for the majority of his people, economic growth has been good though, as you point out, still reliant on oil. They still seem to be in a far better position than before he was elected. The populist angle seems like nonsense in light of the fact that policies that help the poor on the back of an oil boom would surely be good policies anyway; that his electoral base is the poor is hardly surprising nor in itself bad.

So is he not really one of Venezuala's better leaders?

 

[X3pilot]

The situation the leader finds him or herself in defines the style of leadership and thereby defines the leader, not a set definition of what you, me or the media "thinks" a leader should be. He is what he is to a majority of the people of that country. Rhetoric aside and strictly speaking from a leadership standpoint, he is a good leader.

When he gets on TV ranting about President bush being the devil, hugging Ahmahdinijahd (sp?) and courting Sean Penn and other attention whores, he becomes an attention whore.

He says he hates the US but doesn't seem to mind spending our $ from sale of oil to us?

 

[fluff]

The situation the leader finds him or herself in defines the style of leadership and thereby defines the leader, not a set definition of what you, me or the media "thinks" a leader should be. He is what he is to a majority of the people of that country. Rhetoric aside and strictly speaking from a leadership standpoint, he is a good leader.

When he gets on TV ranting about President bush being the devil, hugging Ahmahdinijahd (sp?) and courting Sean Penn and other attention whores, he becomes an attention whore.

He says he hates the US but doesn't seem to mind spending our $ from sale of oil to us?

Using the same criteria as a yardstick for Bush (or many other world leaders) doesn't do any better for them. Bush is less popular, less effective, just as much of a attention whore and happy to burn Venzuela's oil whilst hating their regime.

 

[1453]

Using the same criteria as a yardstick for Bush (or many other world leaders) doesn't do any better for them. Bush is less popular, less effective, just as much of a attention whore and happy to burn Venzuela's oil whilst hating their regime.

by the same logic Democrats are the in the same league since they bitch about Bush, yet have no problem using the imported oil from Venezuela and Iraq in their cars for those long trips and for heating their homes.

dangerous road to go down...

 

[fluff]

by the same logic Democrats are the in the same league since they bitch about Bush, yet have no problem using the imported oil from Venezuela and Iraq in their cars for those long trips and for heating their homes.

Well, if we're not confining the comparison to leaders of nations then I see no reason to disagree, though some of the criteria don't apply.

dangerous road to go down...

Really, why?

 

[1453]

Really, why?

because very soon we can find a "link" between any one of us with woman-stoning jihadists. Imagine how elaborate of game of "degrees of seperation" we can play.

 

[fluff]

because very soon we can find a "link" between any one of us with woman-stoning jihadists. Imagine how elaborate of game of "degrees of seperation" we can play.

It's a hell of a long road to travel from the original comparison to linking me to jihadists. So long as to be ridiculous.

 

[ohio]

So is he not really one of Venezuala's better leaders?

I think you're confusing MikeD and me.

(Too many negatives) Uh, NO I think he IS one of Venezuela's better leaders. I think he's one of Latin America's better leaders. He is not however, the saint-hero that leftists claim him to be, nor is he the evil aspiring-dictator that right-wing capitalists make him out to be. The world is not black and white.

He is also setting up some dangerous policies that need to be carefully monitored whether he means ill by them or not.

 

[fluff]

I think you're confusing MikeD and me.

(Too many negatives) Uh, NO I think he IS one of Venezuela's better leaders. I think he's one of Latin America's better leaders. He is not however, the saint-hero that leftists claim him to be, nor is he the evil aspiring-dictator that right-wing capitalists make him out to be. The world is not black and white.

He is also setting up some dangerous policies that need to be carefully monitored whether he means ill by them or not.

Not entirely sure where you're headed with the last sentence though I wouldn't totally disagree either. The rest of your post is a fair assessment.

 

[ohio]

Not entirely sure where you're headed with the last sentence

Skewing the system of checks and balances towards the executive is a dangerous precedent. It's happening in the US as well but our system is far more robust. In one less so, it encourages totalitarianism.

"Encouraging" is not the same as "being," but it's still worrisome.

 

[fluff]

Skewing the system of checks and balances towards the executive is a dangerous precedent. It's happening in the US as well but our system is far more robust. In one less so, it encourages totalitarianism.

"Encouraging" is not the same as "being," but it's still worrisome.

It was less that part of your statement (which I agree with); it was more the monitoring part - had undertones of previous US interventions in Latin America when the countries there got a little too uppity.

 

[rockwool]

Two links to articles regarding the epilogue of the referendum The first with comments from Bush and answers from the Venezuelan ambasador to the US, as well as US congressman José Serrano, and the second what different L.A. leaders had to say about the referendum.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2961

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2960

A lot of stuff have been posted that I'd like to comment but I hope I have enough time to find some articles I've read about what Chavez' government is doing to shake away its dependency on oil as their main income.

 

[ohio]

It was less that part of your statement (which I agree with); it was more the monitoring part - had undertones of previous US interventions in Latin America when the countries there got a little too uppity.

Ah, I mean "we" the developed world. I'm actually a big fan of massively scaling back US interventionism; that is, forcing other countries to start footing the bill for global stability, and preventing the US from acting unilaterally because it can. Not that the UN isn't already doing so much...

 

[fluff]

Ah, I mean "we" the developed world. I'm actually a big fan of massively scaling back US interventionism; that is, forcing other countries to start footing the bill for global stability, and preventing the US from acting unilaterally because it can. Not that the UN isn't already doing so much...

Now there is a whole other argument...

 

[rockwool]

Now at length:True, cheap oil spurs the economy but at their prices he's throwing away money that might not always be coming in. If they don't build a non-oil reliant economy, they will be crushed by the IMF (just like in the 90s) when those prices drop and Chavez needs cash to support his programs.

Just found an pretty new article about how Chavez is looking at other things than just the oil to get an income/widen the know-how of Venezuela:


Venezuela and Belarus Strengthen Strategic Alliance

December 9th 2007, by Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com

Mérida, December 9, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) - President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, made an official visit to Venezuela this weekend, where he signed several biliateral agreements to provide Venezuela with industry and technology from Belarus and the two countries formed a joint company to extract oil from Venezuela's Orinoco River Delta.

"For us there are no limits to cooperation between our countries," said Lukashenko from the Orinoco on Saturday. "We have made agreements that we are going to strengthen by all means to construct a multi-polar world."

The two leaders traveled to the Orinoco on Saturday to inaugurate a joint company for exploitation of the heavy crude oil located there. The company will belong 60 percent to the Venezuelan Petroleum Corporation (CVP) and 40 percent to Belorusneft of Belarus and will exploit oil deposits in the eastern state of Anzoategui, as well as in the western state of Zulia.

But beyond the agreement for the exploitation of oil, Belarus and Venezuela also signed several agreements for the creation of industries with technology from Belarus. The two countries plan on creating three factories in the next few years: one to produce heavy-duty trucks for mining (Venbelas), another to build tractors, and a third for the construction of auto chassis and bodies.

"We are ready to share our development with you," said Lukashenko, who promised that within two or three years the two nations would create more joint companies to transfer technology to Venezuela.

Communications Minister Willian Lara emphasized that Belarus has a high level of scientific and technological development due to the fact that there was a high level of development there during the time of the Soviet Union. He said Venezuela has high expectations from the relationship with Belarus, including the eventual possibility of exporting products such as heavy-duty trucks to the rest of Latin America.

In Caracas on Friday, President Lukashenko and President Chavez inaugurated an exhibition of the best industrial production, craftsmanship, and culture from Belarus. Hundreds of presenters from Belarus will present Belorussian textiles, foods, and diverse sectors of production with the purpose of deepening commercial ties between the countries.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro emphasized the importance of the exposition, which he assured will be attended by important diplomats and businessmen from Latin America who are interested in building a relationship with Belarus.

"Belarus inherited the technological, scientific, and industrial formation of the Soviet Union," said Maduro. He said that the European nation had a lot to offer Venezuela in terms of highways, city development, mining sectors, gas sectors, heavy machinery, and petrochemicals.

Another of the agreements signed is for the creation of a joint company to produce televisions and other low-cost electronic goods and another company for the production of low-weight trucks.

The Venezuelan president emphasized the importance of the agreements for Venezuela's development, and the importance of Lukashenko's presence in Venezuela.

"These agreements are proof that now Venezuela is free. Now we have ceased to be a colony of the United States," Chavez said. "Ten years ago it was unthinkable that Lukashenko would even be in Venezuela."

The two nations began to deepen bilateral relations after Chavez traveled to Minsk in July of 2006. Looking to diversify Venezuela's economy and geopolitical relations, the Venezuelan president has sought numerous agreements with the former Soviet-bloc nation and earlier this year gave Belarus a loan of 460 million dollars to pay a debt to Russia.

The two countries have signed 24 cooperative agreements over the last two years and plan to continue strengthening commercial and strategic ties. Both leaders are seen negatively from Washington, which calls Lukashenko "Europe's last dictator."

"The media dictatorship calls him the last dictator of Europe, and me the last dictator of Latin America," said Chavez. "Well, here we are, the last dictators."

He insisted that they are both demonized because they are "at the front of a process to liberate our people, to unite our nations, and break the neoliberal paradigm of globalization."

"We both resist a unipolar world and we both resist an empire that wants to be the owner of the world," he said.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2979


Also read some time ago that they were trying to get self sustained when it comes to agricultural products. I'll keep serching for more info.