George if you want a good case study of socialist-style policies and crown corporations, just look at the economic history of Canada.
The hey-day of state-owned crown corporations died over 20 years ago but can have it's place.

That's not to say that some can't be useful or even profitable however, being government, it's an uphill battle if they don't die under their own bureaucratic weight first.
Air Canada is a great example of a company that needed to be saved by the government. After swallowing up their competition, Canadian Airlines, in 2001, they filed for bankruptcy in 2003.
They've been bailed out more times than I care to remember after that but in all honesty, was needed to keep it from going bankrupt, which IMHO, is the only reason a government should be intervening.
The economic result of their bankruptcy would have been catastrophic due to all the spin-off business associated.
(Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of stranded passengers!)

It is also the exact opposite reasoning under which Hugo is nationalizing. He's nationalizing for more state control, not to save anything.

Suffice to say that time will tell what will happen with Venezuela's economy after its new found wolf in sheep's clothing white knight.
Early indications though, other than trying to undermine the oil industry with heavy subsides and offering it to Americans (see Alaska) in a vein attempt to jostle Bush, look shady at best.

I'll say it again, if oil prices fall, Venezuela could be in for a world of hurt.
Until then, Hugo is going to look like a star on top of his self-made deck of cards...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But you don't know what socialism means so your insults only make you sound daft. If you can only argue against socialist policies based on your pathetic knowledge of communism then fine.

if i wanted to sound daft of socialist ideals i would have refered to you as "Trotsky" or "Mao". this i think you realize this ut for some reason you want to distance yourself from your principle's congenital past. which you still haven't acknowledged which in turn leads me to believe you are either ashamed to admit it or you are denying it out of ignorance which i doubt thats the case.

i mean for FFS dude, you invoked Jesus! and i can't do the same with Karl Marx without you getting your tits in a twist being all defensive about it?


maybe i touched a nerve.whatever it wasn't my intention but it has occured to me now that maybe you are the one brainwashed.

Last edited by Q5echo on Sep-06-2007 at 02:10

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka The argument (at least the one that I would make) is that the dictatorship is a causal event in creating poor economic conditions (at least particularly in the case of Venezuela and several others), not the other way around. Economic conditions are a result not a cause. Do you disagree?

What about Germany in the late 30's or Saudi, Dubai, or Quatar right now? China's doing fairly well and it's totalitarian if not a dictatorship.

Economic conditions are a result of economic decisions. It dosen't matter if the decisions are reached by some vauge notion of a popular concensus or through the lone actions of a dictator.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka ...

You have now made three mistakes regarding Chavez, adding the media into the fray.

Chavez has been consistantly elected democratically, because for each elections there have been international monitors who have reported nothing wrong (could the same be said if they monitored US elections?)

If Chavez wants to change the law so he can stand indefinately, then there is no problem as the practice itself is practiced by a great many countries around the world (but not in the US which is what you're basing your ignorant opinion that this law is somehow undemocratic because it is different from how the US operates)

The fact that Chavez has won proven democratic elections, and must continue to do so, proves once and for all that there is nothing wrong with this law.

However, the Venezuelan opposition you love so much staged a military coup and kidnapped Chavez in 2002, hardly the most democratic of moves was it? And that's the same opposition that controls most of the media...

As for the media, that's your second mistake. You claim it is being "systematically shut down". Nonesense. Absolute garbage. What you are referring to is the decision by the government (who have every right according to law) to not renew RCTV's licence for the channel 2 frequency, because they wanted to use it as a public channel as that frequency can reach more homes than any other. RCTV can continue to broadcast on cable or satellite, and has therefore certainly not been "shut down" as you mistakenly claim. The case of RCTV is what your media base their accusations of "media censorship" on. Not true. The opposition control most of the media and they are allowed to get away with activities that would see them in jail in your country (they organised and plotted the 2002 coup ffs!)

Back onto your claims about Chavez "consolidating power". You don't even know there was an opposition boycott in the last elections. Can you see why, an opposition desperate to seize power (by a military coup no less) might want to boycott elections? It is so idiots like you can suck up the media lies about Chavez undemocratically seizing power by "placing" his supporters in Parliament. If there were only pro-Chavez parties standing in elections, tell me how much of a control would Chavez have? 100% - democratically. This is a dirty ploy by the opposition, just like the decision NOT to take the government to court over RCTV (which they probably could have won) as they are trying to create the impression in countries like America that Venezuela is a dictatorship, and if you are any indication of the gullibility of the average American to suck up all the bullshit fed them by the right-wing media then it just makes the undemocratic opposition in Venezuela's job that much more easier...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo if i wanted to sound daft of socialist ideals i would have refered to you as "Trotsky" or "Mao". this i think you realize this ut for some reason you want to distance yourself from your principle's congenital past. which you still haven't acknowledged which in turn leads me to believe you are either ashamed to admit it or you are denying it out of ignorance which i doubt thats the case. i mean for FFS dude, you invoked Jesus! and i can't do the same with Karl Marx without you getting your tits in a twist being all defensive about it? maybe i touched a nerve.whatever it wasn't my intention but it has occured to me now that maybe you are the one brainwashed.

You're right-wing, I'm left-wing. But I can guess pretty much that you're not as right wing as Hitler! Yet you don't seem to be able to distinguish between communism (to the far left) and social democracy (which is a tad to the left of liberal democracy)

I don't feel insulted by you calling me Karl, I just want you to know that your arguments, if based on the assumption I am promoting communism, will be incorrect.

My favoured economic model is the Keynesian model, so if you want to call me anything call me Johnny!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Mix between private and public

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley As for the media, that's your second mistake. You claim it is being "systematically shut down". Nonesense. Absolute garbage. What you are referring to is the decision by the government (who have every right according to law) to not renew RCTV's licence for the channel 2 frequency, because they wanted to use it as a public channel as that frequency can reach more homes than any other. RCTV can continue to broadcast on cable or satellite, and has therefore certainly not been "shut down" as you mistakenly claim. The case of RCTV is what your media base their accusations of "media censorship" on. Not true. The opposition control most of the media and they are allowed to get away with activities that would see them in jail in your country (they organised and plotted the 2002 coup ffs!) Back onto your claims about Chavez "consolidating power". You don't even know there was an opposition boycott in the last elections. Can you see why, an opposition desperate to seize power (by a military coup no less) might want to boycott elections? It is so idiots like you can suck up the media lies about Chavez undemocratically seizing power by "placing" his supporters in Parliament. If there were only pro-Chavez parties standing in elections, tell me how much of a control would Chavez have? 100% - democratically. This is a dirty ploy by the opposition, just like the decision NOT to take the government to court over RCTV (which they probably could have won) as they are trying to create the impression in countries like America that Venezuela is a dictatorship, and if you are any indication of the gullibility of the average American to suck up all the bullshit fed them by the right-wing media then it just makes the undemocratic opposition in Venezuela's job that much more easier...

Come now. Chavez's consolidation of power in the Venezualan Presidancy is far more insidious than even Bush's consolidation of power in the executive branch ... and that says a lot. Are we saying that because Chavez has a mandate due to elections that he has the legitimacy to do what he's doing??? Let me remind you that Bush has a democratic voting mandate to make decisions so does that mean his consititutional erosions are legitimate? Do you really think that adhering to semantics of "not renewing a liscence" holds up to a fair assessement of what is actually going on?? Chavez has been one of the MOST anti- democratic advocates of south america over the past decade and evidence for that is not hard to find. Or are the concerns expressed by the EU, humans rights watch, etc., all baseless? This isn't even close to being the first crackdown on the opposition by Chavez.

quote:

Chávez changes channels May 29th 2007 | CARACAS From Economist.com The president closes a critical TV station Reuters IN THE ultra-modern, digital newsroom of Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), a message taped to a room-divider reads: “If you’re looking to buy consciences, ours are not for sale”. RCTV’s journalists are unable to broadcast their news programmes in the normal fashion since the channel was taken off the air just before midnight on Sunday May 27th. President Hugo Chávez decreed last December that there would be no more television concessions for what he calls “fascists” and “coup plotters”. His supporters argue that the concession expired on Sunday and was simply not renewed. The channel’s owners and staff, along with many human-rights organisations, see the move as revenge for their critical editorial line. Channel 2, where RCTV had broadcast for more than half a century, is now home to a new government-run channel. Gone are Venezuelans’ favourite soap operas, the world’s longest-running comedy show, “Radio Rochela”, and a breakfast talk-show called “The Interview” that has earned its outspoken anti-Chávez host, Miguel Angel Rodríguez, a stream of insults and threats from sources supporting the president. Polls suggest that an overwhelming majority of Venezuelans oppose what they consider as interference with their choice of viewing. On Sunday and Monday many took to the streets, and to the airwaves—or at least, those that are still open to dissenting voices. That means, primarily, Globovisión: the 24-hour news station is the only remaining anti-government channel. Students from Caracas’s main universities, and others across the country, braved tear-gas and plastic bullets from riot police. They were joined by journalists and, in a remarkable show of solidarity, by soap stars and news anchors from RCTV’s rival, Venevisión. Its boss, Gustavo Cisneros, caved in to government pressure several years ago and removed anti-Chávez commentary and news items from his station. Mr Chávez won re-election last December, after nearly eight years in power, with more than 60% of the vote. Since then, he has taken a sharp turn to the left, in a bid to install in Venezuela what he calls a “21st century socialist” regime. But many of his own supporters oppose the closure of RCTV. The second-largest party in his parliamentary coalition, the social-democratic Podemos, refused to attend a recent session in support of the decision. Party sources say that not one of its legislators agrees with the closure of RCTV. International reaction has scarcely been more encouraging for Mr Chávez. On Monday the European Union expressed concern that the non-renewal of the concession took place without any open competition for a successor. Germany called on the Venezuelan government to respect the principle of press freedom. Non-governmental organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists have all condemned the move. Carlos Lauría of the CPJ called it “a predetermined and politically motivated effort to silence critical coverage [which] sets a chilling precedent.” RCTV, along with Venezuela’s other TV channels, are not without blemish. In April 2002, when Mr Chávez was briefly ousted in a coup attempt, they blacked out news of protests that helped to restore him to power. And their role as behind-the-scenes power brokers has often distorted their coverage. But the government’s growing number of media outlets, both broadcast and print, pump out an unremitting diet of pro-Chávez propaganda, belittling and even slandering opposition figures on a daily basis. Moreover, the government holds all the regulatory powers, as well as controlling the Supreme Court, whose rulings seldom challenge its interests. Has Mr Chávez made a significant miscalculation, which could affect his apparently firm grip on power? Enrique ter Horst, a lawyer and a former UN deputy high commissioner for human rights, says Mr Chávez remains strong but that, “he clearly overestimated his forces in this case”. The circumstances “open a new chapter” in the country’s political crisis. Mr Chávez seems to have two options: a further crack-down on dissent, or to ease up on the revolutionary accelerator. A legal move on Monday to prosecute Globovisión for allegedly hinting that the president should be assassinated, by Venezuela’s information minister suggests that the government does not plan to climb-down. If so, tension is sure to rise. http://www.economist.com/world/la/d...FTOKEN=40151358

___________________
Retro ...

Sorry but the myth of media censorship in Venezuela has already be debunked in this thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forum/s...4&forumid=66&s=

Next please...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Sorry but the myth of media censorship in Venezuela has already be debunked in this thread: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forum/s...4&forumid=66&s= Next please...

Yea, totally debunked...

I guess that's why RCTV has gone internet, via YouTube and has over 242.000 views just in the past week.
Let's see Hugo shut that down...
>http://www.youtube.com/elobservadorenlinea<
]Not to mention the huge protests they had regarding free speech that followed...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Yea, totally debunked... I guess that's why RCTV has gone internet, via YouTube and has over 242.000 views just in the past week. Let's see Hugo shut that down... >http://www.youtube.com/elobservadorenlinea< ]Not to mention the huge protests they had regarding free speech that followed...

Erm one million people marched in London to protest the Iraq War, what's your point? That any unpopular policy decision defines the actions of a dictatorship? Here's something you may be unaware of: sometimes governments make unpopular policy decisions

As for RCTV and the accusations of media censorship, yes they are debunked, and I shall take you lack of arguments to suggest otherwise as agreement.

(At the end of the day, it is the decision of the government who gets what licence, RCTV has no right to demand they get it - that's the law I'm afraid. Never has Chavez tried to "shut them down" as you falsely suggest, as they are perfectly free to broadcast on cable/satellite, as are the other major media stations in Venezuela that orchestrated a military coup against the democratically elected government - something that would have resulted in them all being shut down and owners thrown in jail in any other country, yet no comments from you strangely enough about that...)

While we're on the subject of the Venezuelan opposition, I find it incredibly hypocritical of you right-wingers to oppose the democratically elected Chavez, and instead support the opposition who undemocratically staged a military coup...

Anyone care to explain themselves? Don't all rush at once now will you

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Yea, totally debunked... I guess that's why RCTV has gone internet, via YouTube and has over 242.000 views just in the past week. Let's see Hugo shut that down... >http://www.youtube.com/elobservadorenlinea< ]Not to mention the huge protests they had regarding free speech that followed...

Aren't caricatures great?