Conquer Club

The man was not perfect, but I do not doubt his sincerity in his defence of the poor. Something you can't say of most politicians.

In concrete terms it has been responsible for the following achievements:

1. The lowest indices of inequality in Latin America over the past 12 years. The indices of extreme poverty have dramatically decreased, along with poverty in general, with the Gini Coefficient (the measure of inequality in the distribution of income) being the lowest in the history of Venezuela. At the same time the Index of Human Development (IDH) has risen.

2. A literacy program that has led to UNESCO declaring Venezuela a country free of illiteracy. Higher education enrollment has increased by 170 percent, up from 785,285 students in 1998 to over 2.12 million in 2009. Venezuela now occupies the second place in Latin America and fifth in the world when it comes to university graduation.

3. The investment of 7.8% of GNP into a free healthcare program, known as Mission Barrio Adentro, designed to provide free healthcare services to the poor. To date it has saved 301,000 lives. Additionally, the level of infant mortality has been reduced by 32%.

4. A reduction in the rate of unemployment from 16.1% in 1998 to 6.5% today. Venezuela's minimum wage is now among the highest in Latin America. Workers also receive a bonus of food and their pensions have been raised to the same level as the nation's minimum wage.

5. With the PSUV's Mission Alimentation food is now offered at lower prices to the poor. The result has been a reduction in those suffering from a nutritional deficit from 5.3% of the population to 2.9% in the past decade.

6. A 4% rise in GDP in 2011, with significant gains registered in the non-petroleum sector of the Venezuelan economy for the first time in decades.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/venezuelas-hugo-chavez-ha_b_1912366.html

>his defence of the poor

lol

I applaud any leader that has their people's best interests at heart. Especially when compared with our American leaders

Now, the question is, will his successr be more or less pro-American.

Lil_SlimShady wrote:Now, the question is, will his successr be more or less pro-American.

There's a "less"?

Lil_SlimShady wrote:Now, the question is, will his successr be more or less pro-American.

And there I was thinking that Venezuela was South American...

Symmetry wrote:

Lil_SlimShady wrote:Now, the question is, will his successr be more or less pro-American.

And there I was thinking that Venezuela was South American...

An easy mistake to make,repeat after me the USA is America!!!

Greivis full of grief
[only Venezuelan starter in nba]

Symmetry wrote:

Lil_SlimShady wrote:Now, the question is, will his successr be more or less pro-American.

And there I was thinking that Venezuela was South American...

You know that I meant pro-USA.

Do people from the Americas who are NOT in the USA find this as annoying as (eg) Welsh and Scots find the confusion (by everyone else) between "British" and "English"?

Lil_SlimShady wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Lil_SlimShady wrote:Now, the question is, will his successr be more or less pro-American.

And there I was thinking that Venezuela was South American...

You know that I meant pro-USA.

Of course I did, but some gentle correction did you no harm.

jonesthecurl wrote:Do people from the Americas who are NOT in the USA find this as annoying as (eg) Welsh and Scots find the confusion (by everyone else) between "British" and "English"?

Good question.

When the word "Americano" is spoken, do they think it refers to non-Americans?

This is a fascinating etymological question on which I've sometimes pondered.

It's polite for US-Americans to call their nationality Estadounidense instead of Americano while in South America. But, poor USA has no informal name - only a formal name - so has no choices. Meanwhile, as I understand it, poor Canada has no formal name, only an informal name. There has to be some creative solution for both problems.

Also, terrible news about Chavez.

EDIT - spelling "terribly" to "terribl"

EDIT-2 - misspelled "terrible" in my correction of my misspelling of the word "terrible"

Also, Jude Law and all these guidos were probably not singing about Guatemalans loving whiskey and Camel cigarettes ... so they at least understood.

You guys are less fun than you used to be.

pmchugh wrote:The man was not perfect, but I do not doubt his sincerity in his defence of the poor. Something you can't say of most politicians.

Defense of the Poor, that's hilarious.

Why Hugo Chavez Was Bad for Venezuela

Venezuela’s oil output has fallen by almost a third since Chavez took power. That’s why Venezuelan economic growth is pretty underwhelming. Those social programs so beloved of Nation writers came out of investment funds that were previously used to keep oil production high–necessary, as we’ve discussed, because Venezuela’s sludgy crude is hard to get out of the ground. Which gives us a paradox: Venezuela’s reserves are growing, but its production is in decline.

The only reason that the economy isn’t worse is that oil prices have stayed high. But with production falling, Venezuela doesn’t just need high oil prices, but continuously rising oil prices, to keep funding all that government spending. This is why Venezuela has been one of the hawkiest hawks in OPEC, always agitating for tighter quotas and higher prices. A country with falling production doesn’t need to worry about tighter quotas. But they do need to worry that lower prices will throw their budget disastrously out of balance.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... zuela.html

In short, the transfer of wealth into welfare programs is well-appreciated in the short-run by many; however, the funding for that largely rests on the price of oil--specifically Venezuela's crude oil.

Also, I recall a conversation I had with an informed individual about the rate of oil extraction across countries (specifically, Saudi Arabia and Venuzuela). When Hugo Chavez stole nationalized the oil industry in his country, he demanded that the rate of oil extraction should be increased. The problem is that in order to maximize the total amount extracted from an oil reserve, a particular rate is required. If the rate is increased beyond the optimal rate, then more oil will be extracted faster and in the short-run will increase; however, the quantity in the long-run is decreased because the faster rate makes the reserve less stable and then collapse sooner than it would have.

So, Hugo Chavez unintentionally has robbed 'his' own people of the long-term benefits of their oil sector, which he has rendered less productive by nationalizing it. Furthermore, his welfare programs are unsustainable, so when prices drop and when the costs of unstable reserves kick in, things in Venezuela will get worse. Of course, the capitalists will be blamed on this one, and Hugo Chavez's wise policies for the people will still be praised.

This is no "defense of the poor." It was the result of Hugo Chavez's seeking to maximize votes and retain his power through other means (nationalizing oil sector, promoting price controls, and transferring wealth from one group to another). Very despicable and irresponsible.

Look at that inflation! That is fucking terrible--especially for the poor!

To be fair about that inflation rate, BBS, before he took office in 1999 it was much, much higher (though of course 20+ percent is unacceptable).

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/inflation-cpi

And before 1986 it was roughly the same as during his consolidation of power, so... <shrugs>

What's frustrating is that too many people think Chavez was great for Venezuela because they believed in his rhetoric and heavily discounted the costs and unintended consequences of his policies--and the policies which were approved under his government.


Polity IV Index provides a rough estimate of the degree to which the Executive holds power. +10 is like the US, GER, UK. -10 is like Saudi Arabia. I think Iran is around +4.

Venezuela:



But this doesn't count freedom of the media because since Hugo could curtail dissenting opinions, thus constraining the alternatives of his presidency, he could maintain power through the guise of a +6 and +1 democracy--("democracy" as in not a liberal democracy like CAN, US, GER, etc.)

Freedom of the Press 2011
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher ... d1c,0.html
(conclusion: Not Free).

Freedom in the World - Venezuela (2003)
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher ... 64c,0.html
(conclusion: Partially Free).

Oof.


Economic Freedom (heritage.org)


(VEN ranks next to Zimbabwe).

Economic Freedom (freetheworld.org) - Venezuela
http://www.freetheworld.com/countrydata ... untry=C137

Note the correlations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_f ... ic_freedom
(RE: that claim about the poorest 10%, there's no correlation between economic freedom and it. Something else may explain that, but economic freedom--nor its opposite, extremely low economic freedom, help explain that variable).



Anyone who supported Hugo Chavez is ignorant.* It seems that most supporters (especially non-Venezuelans) founded their support on their sentiments. They buy the rhetoric and don't care to examine what was actually happening. That's one of the biggest problem with state socialists: way too "touchy-feely" while lacking any understanding of what matters. Of course, this doesn't stop them from gleaning out-of-context 'facts' and using it justify their viewpoints. Most of them are very similar to creationists--in this regard.

*I don't really the Venezuelans who had little choice but to accept government relief---i.e. relief from the consequences of that government's policies and institutions.