|
Hugo...doing it again. (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Erm no I am arguing exactly the opposite of that - that poor economies do not equal dictatorship. The very fact that you bring the economic performance into the equation of a debate on whether or not Venezuela is a dictatorship suggested to me that you were using it as an indicator of dictatorship - I was pointing out this is an incorrect assumption. However, you now seem to be saying that poor economic performance is not an indicator of dictatorship, so what exactly is the point of bringing it up in the first place? |
Sorry--should've said something to the effect of, "The argument I believe you are accusing us of making is that poor economies = dictatorship...." which is something I do not believe, but something I think you think we believe. That was convoluted.
| quote: | | You've made the statement Venezuela is a dictatorship - you need to back that up with evidence (and as we now both agree, economic performance is not evidence) |
The evidence is in the articles as well as what is there for the whole world to see. Hugo has nationalized much of the economy, i.e. taken it under government control and he IS the government. Furthermore, he has taken steps to try to insure that he will be "president" for life. He has consolidated all control and decision making power under one roof--his. Are you trying to claim that those are not qualities that reflect dictatorial rule? You'd be nuts. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
And as for the economic performance of Venezuela...
It depends on what you use as economic indicators, especially considering the different economic system Chavez is trying to introduce. What makes a good indicator for our economic systems might not give you a good idea about Venezuela. For example, the economic indicators that say whether or not our economies are performing well relate almost entirely to the performance of businesses. We don't even have accurate figures for average wages people are earning!
For me, the main concerns are unemployment, education levels and poverty (living standards). Anything doesn't really matter (altho in our societies, the performance of businesses effect these factors, but perhaps not so in more socialist societies)
Unemployment in Venezuela currently stands around 8.9% (dec 2006 estimate) which most people would say is too high. But in South America, only Peru, Bolivia and Argentina have lower unemployment rates, so regionally, Venezuela's unemployment rate is pretty impressive.
Literacy in Venezuela is currently 93%. Only Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay have higher literacy rates, so even tho 93% might seem low, regionally it is pretty good (4th out of 9 countries)
Interestingly, the country in the region with the best economic performance is supposedly Brazil, the next India no less! Yet Brazil's unemployment is 9.6% and the literacy rate is only 88.6% (only Bolivia has a lower rate). So is Brazil a dictatorship as well?
Poverty is a huge problem in Venezuela. The latest figures from 2005 show poverty at 37.9% which still places Venezuela 5th in the region (the economic powerhouse of Brazil has 31% poverty). Interestingly, before Chavez took over in 1999, poverty levels stood at 50-55% (and you're trying to tell me the opposition is a better option than Chavez?!?!) Following Chavez's victory in the elections, poverty levels dropped to around 40% (but shot up, along with unemployment rates around 2002) The two biggest policies of Chavez is to lower poverty and increase education. This is what all the oil money is being spent on that has effected other economic indicators such as inflation and currency value. But education and poverty reduction is a great thing and it's working. Poverty levels are dropping (indeed they are currently lowest levels in Venezuela for a decade - perhaps ever) and the poor now have access to education the opposition prevented them from having access to (again, you're trying to tell me Venezuelans would be better off with the opposition?!?!)
This type of economics is alien to Americans. Every economic indicator in our societies ignores the people in favour of business performances - Chavez's system places the people first and therefore our economic indicators probably don't paint a great picture of the economic performance of a centrally planned economy... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Sorry--should've said something to the effect of, "The argument I believe you are accusing us of making is that poor economies = dictatorship...." which is something I do not believe, but something I think you think we believe. That was convoluted. |
Yes I did think that's what you thought, but if it isn't then I don't see the relevance in mentioning economic performance in the first place
| quote: | | The evidence is in the articles as well as what is there for the whole world to see. Hugo has nationalized much of the economy, i.e. taken it under government control and he IS the government. Furthermore, he has taken steps to try to insure that he will be "president" for life. He has consolidated all control and decision making power under one roof--his. Are you trying to claim that those are not qualities that reflect dictatorial rule? You'd be nuts. |
He is not trying to change the law so he can be "president for life" - that is how those lacking in intelligence/ulterior motives are twisting the information. He is trying to change the law so he can be ELECTED as many times as the people see fit. And when Chavez wins elections with a landslide election of course the pattern will be followed in the National Parliament. But what you fail to mention (you probably don't even know) is that the opposition BOYCOTTED the elections, which is why it is full of pro-Chavez supporters - yet you suck up the lies and bull presented to you by your national government and media to falsely suggest Chavez "placed" them there like a dictator - they were elected by the people - keep ignoring these little facts, it just makes your arguments harder and harder to take seriously
So, who is nuts? You or me? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Ironically I agree! If you look at the messages in the Bible, they very closely resebmle socialism - yet for some reason the god squad in America seem to be extreme right wing capitalists! Maybe they should actually read the Bible sometime! |
I'm pretty the Bible put tax collectors on a lower level than prostitutes. ;)
Smiley, I really think you really have a misperception of Americans. We are all for all for 'socialism' on a personal and family level. When it comes to voluntary charity and helping your friends and family in need, well that is just the human thing to do. This may surprise you, but I don't make a ton of money ($20k). Even so, I try to give around $1000 away every year to a few charities in my city. I know these charities do awesome work helping out those who truly need it (people who have lost their homes to fire, taking care of children from abusive households, etc). I think everyone should at least give SOMETHING they earn to a good cause. That type of behavior should definately be encouraged..
But to help others by confiscating wealth at the point of a gun...well that is decidedly UN-Christian in my book. When you use government power, you are using force and violence...and I'm pretty sure Jesus hated those things. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I'm pretty the Bible put tax collectors on a lower level than prostitutes. ;)
Smiley, I really think you really have a misperception of Americans. We are all for all for 'socialism' on a personal and family level. When it comes to voluntary charity and helping your friends and family in need, well that is just the human thing to do. This may surprise you, but I don't make a ton of money ($20k). Even so, I try to give around $1000 away every year to a few charities in my city. I know these charities do awesome work helping out those who truly need it (people who have lost their homes to fire, taking care of children from abusive households, etc). I think everyone should at least give SOMETHING they earn to a good cause. That type of behavior should definately be encouraged..
But to help others by confiscating wealth at the point of a gun...well that is decidedly UN-Christian in my book. When you use government power, you are using force and violence...and I'm pretty sure Jesus hated those things. |
I can see where you're comin from and giving to charity is fine, but charities simply do not have the power or the means to help an entire population.
In Europe, where socialist principles are held dearly as part of our culture, we* believe that every citizen has a birth right to health care, education and other social benefits that only a government can provide on a large scale. Of course, government spending has its problems, and it's hard to pay for everything the citizens demand as their right (and most governments don't actually like paying for it!) but at the end of the day, I believe there are certain things every person, no matter how rich or poor, should have the right to, and those policies can only be implemented for everyone by a government, not a charity...
*obviously not everyone! conservatives, who represent the rich, usually argue that people should have to pay their own way for stuff like education and health, so businesses don't have to pay as much tax - but that's easy for them to say when they represent the well off! |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So, who is nuts? You or me? |
you. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
you. |
:)
Here is what you implied in your previous post:
1) Chavez is changing the law to become indefinite, unchallenged ruler
2) Chavez placed, undemocratically, his supporters in the legislative
Both accusations are incorrect, aren't they? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
:)
Here is what you implied in your previous post:
1) Chavez is changing the law to become indefinite, unchallenged ruler
2) Chavez placed, undemocratically, his supporters in the legislative
Both accusations are incorrect, aren't they? |
I don't believe I implied all of that. What I said is that he has nationalized many industries (confiscating and destroying billions in wealth in the process), has been consolidating power, and has recently tried to pass a law (I did not say illegally or undemocratically, though the democracy down their is suspect as the poor majority has essentially been bought off, as explained by the article I posted) which would make him de facto ruler for life. Do you seriously believe that if said law passes that he won't orchestrate a way to ensure that he wins every single election? He models himself after Castro for God's sake. It is no secret what's going on down there. This is not an issue of the media construing things one way or another, it's right there for anyone with open eyes to see.
I'm not even sure what your position is on anything that is being argued here other than you appear to be a Chavez apologist. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | | Ironically I agree! If you look at the messages in the Bible, they very closely resebmle socialism - yet for some reason the god squad in America seem to be extreme right wing capitalists! Maybe they should actually read the Bible sometime! |
This country has always been fervently capitalist. The religious demographic for the top 1% net income earners is not different from any other group. I wouldn't slap on a belief in god to being rich. Most god believers are not rich, and in fact, religious charities have provided assistance to millions of people in food, shelter, and other social services. Independent of any government assistance, because as you know, separation of church and state prevents government from funding religious based charities. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Nothing defensive whatsoever! But the fact you want to refer to me as "Karl" suggests you're basic your critique of socialist polices on communism (or more specifically, the way in which it has been implemented through history, rather than on the theory itself), which in turn suggests you have no understanding of my economical beliefs whatsoever and your arguments don't stand up as you are arguing against something I am not lending my support to, in order to argue against my points - bizarre |
defensive because you sound like you are completely denying any intrinsic connection between Marx and the modern Socialist movement! not only is that bizzare warrant of any and all defensive accusations that would be blasphemous.
i'm beginning to think you're the one brainwashed into having certain feelings about socialism. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I don't believe I implied all of that. |
| quote: | | What I said is that he has nationalized many industries (confiscating and destroying billions in wealth in the process), |
Where has that wealth gone?
| quote: | | has been consolidating power |
Sorry but you're implying he is doing it undemocratically otherwise it'd be a none-issue. What do you say about the opposition boycott?
| quote: | | and has recently tried to pass a law (I did not say illegally or undemocratically, though the democracy down their is suspect as the poor majority has essentially been bought off, as explained by the article I posted) which would make him de facto ruler for life. |
Here you are specifically implying he is attempting to undemocratically retain power unchallenged - forever. Wrong
| quote: | | Do you seriously believe that if said law passes that he won't orchestrate a way to ensure that he wins every single election? He models himself after Castro for God's sake. It is no secret what's going on down there. |
No secret? "Do I honestly believe"? knows - and you are in no position to say what will or will not happen in the future. Based on the evidence of the past - which is all either of us have to go by - then you are wrong - he won fair and square election after election - DEMOCRATICALLY - not only that, faced with a rabidly anti-Chavez media - something that continues to characterise Venezuela - I ASK YOU AGAIN COMMENT ABOUT THE MEDIA
| quote: | | This is not an issue of the media construing things one way or another, it's right there for anyone with open eyes to see. |
You have regurgitated two media lies - so yes it is about the media and you not having the balls to admit they are wrong.
| quote: | | I'm not even sure what your position is on anything that is being argued here other than you appear to be a Chavez apologist. |
And what's your position? Being a good little poodle like your media and government have trained you to be? You have told two lies about Chavez but when these have been pointed out to you you can't accept it. What exactly has Chavez done that I should apologise for? Taking away the oil wealth from the rich so the poor can have an education?
All you have done is spew out lies that have been disputed...
What is your motive? |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
defensive because you sound like you are completely denying any intrinsic connection between Marx and the modern Socialist movement! not only is that bizzare warrant of any and all defensive accusations that would be blasphemous.
i'm beginning to think you're the one brainwashed into having certain feelings about socialism. |
But you don't know what socialism means so your insults only make you sound daft. I have said time and time again what socialist policies I support - universal health care, free education, min wage, etc - it's called a mixed economy.
If you can only argue against socialist policies based on your pathetic knowledge of communism then fine. But FYI I am a member of the UK Labour Party and if you think they are communist then your knowledge of political theories is even more laughable than you're currently making it out to be... |
|
|
|
|
