GG Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 What changes do you expect to result from his death that will beneficial to either? There's a right way to improve the living conditions of the LatAm impoverished and the wrong way. Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have seen the light. The others? Not quite. Assuming that the replacement will be more level headed, you won't have the petrodollars supporting regional populists who do very little to actually improve the conditions of the poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 One of my favorite moments was at the UN, after Bush addressed the General Assembly, he took the podium, sniffed the air, and said "Smells like sulfur." You've got to love the sense of humor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 One of my favorite moments was at the UN, after Bush addressed the General Assembly, he took the podium, sniffed the air, and said "Smells like sulfur." You've got to love the sense of humor... Well, you'd expect a Marxist to know how to play Groucho once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 Well, the US caused his Cancer, so you know there will be no love there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Well, the US caused his Cancer, so you know there will be no love there... First Romney gives that chick cancer, now Chavez. What a jackass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 First Romney gives that chick cancer, now Chavez. What a jackass. Cancer spreading son of a B word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 There's a right way to improve the living conditions of the LatAm impoverished and the wrong way. Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have seen the light. The others? Not quite. Assuming that the replacement will be more level headed, you won't have the petrodollars supporting regional populists who do very little to actually improve the conditions of the poor. I'm guessing that you would include Chavez himself in your list of "regional populists who do very little to actually improve the conditions of the poor". If so, you're on pretty shaky ground. There are many valid criticisms to be made of Chavez such as mismanaging the economy or his embrace of more or less anyone as long as they were an enemy of the US. However, not improving the conditions of the poor of Venezuela is not one of them and that is something that even most of his critics grudgingly accept. By more or less any measure you care to use the Venezuelan poor are far better off than before Chavez took over. Inequality is now the lowest in South America, poverty has been reduced from 70% to 21% and extreme poverty from 40% to 7.3%. The thousands of Cuban doctors brought in have given free healthcare to thousands who previously had virtually no access to healthcare. Illiteracy has been virtually eliminated. These are very real achievements. Yes, you can argue they may not be sustainable or that things could have been done in a more efficient way, but I think it's pretty difficult to deny their existence all together. And who is in a better situation to judge whether or not their conditions have improved than the Venezuelan poor themselves? They have given their answer by voting for Chavez again and again and again. How do you account for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 7, 2013 Author Share Posted March 7, 2013 I'm guessing that you would include Chavez himself in your list of "regional populists who do very little to actually improve the conditions of the poor". If so, you're on pretty shaky ground. There are many valid criticisms to be made of Chavez such as mismanaging the economy or his embrace of more or less anyone as long as they were an enemy of the US. However, not improving the conditions of the poor of Venezuela is not one of them and that is something that even most of his critics grudgingly accept. By more or less any measure you care to use the Venezuelan poor are far better off than before Chavez took over. Inequality is now the lowest in South America, poverty has been reduced from 70% to 21% and extreme poverty from 40% to 7.3%. The thousands of Cuban doctors brought in have given free healthcare to thousands who previously had virtually no access to healthcare. Illiteracy has been virtually eliminated. These are very real achievements. Yes, you can argue they may not be sustainable or that things could have been done in a more efficient way, but I think it's pretty difficult to deny their existence all together. And who is in a better situation to judge whether or not their conditions have improved than the Venezuelan poor themselves? They have given their answer by voting for Chavez again and again and again. How do you account for that? You are making a specious argument, by suggesting that who people vote for is proof positive of voting for their best self-interests. Lets not confuse populist rhetoric with tangible results. Which country do you think has one of the highest inflation rates in all of South America? Food prices have been soaring, leading to widespread shortages. When food prices rise, who do you think that hurts the most? The poor. Now magnify that times 1000 in a country like Venezuela. So when you have a charasmatic populist like Chavez, who amends the constitution to retain virtually permanent control, then takes over all the media outlets, he in fact does create state-run media, which of course suppresses his opponents rights to free speech and drives home his propaganda of fighting the imperialist Americans (which of course resonates with many uneducated South Americans), and the rich ruling class aristocrats who suck the country dry leaving the poor to fend for themselves. So when you combine his amending of the countries constitution for his perverse intentions of control, nationalize all the major resource producers to control the purse strings, take over the media outlets for reasons of suppression and the spreading of propaganda, with his ability to connect to the people of Venezuela, it's quite normal to expect people to vote for him, despite what is best for their own self-interests. Lets not also forget that since he has taken control, oil production has gone way down, that the most capable human capital that his country has to offer has left Venezuela, reducing their ability to succeed long-term, while amassing over 2 Billion dollars of wealth for his family, essentially robbing his country through corruption, while railing on his opponents for doing the same despite him being the largest culprit of them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 There's a right way to improve the living conditions of the LatAm impoverished and the wrong way. Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru have seen the light. The others? Not quite. Assuming that the replacement will be more level headed, you won't have the petrodollars supporting regional populists who do very little to actually improve the conditions of the poor. Two of the most significant improvements in "conditions of the poor" have come from Ecuador and Bolivia. I don't know that Mexico is the poster child for any "right way" for improving living conditions. Lula and Bachelet, two socialist presidents, made significant improvements in their countries as well. Bachelet will probably return as president in the next election. I'd really be interested in what you define as the "right way vs wrong way".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 You are making a specious argument, by suggesting that who people vote for is proof positive of voting for their best self-interests. Lets not confuse populist rhetoric with tangible results. Which country do you think has one of the highest inflation rates in all of South America? Food prices have been soaring, leading to widespread shortages. When food prices rise, who do you think that hurts the most? The poor. Now magnify that times 1000 in a country like Venezuela. So when you have a charasmatic populist like Chavez, who amends the constitution to retain virtually permanent control, then takes over all the media outlets, he in fact does create state-run media, which of course suppresses his opponents rights to free speech and drives home his propaganda of fighting the imperialist Americans (which of course resonates with many uneducated South Americans), and the rich ruling class aristocrats who suck the country dry leaving the poor to fend for themselves. So when you combine his amending of the countries constitution for his perverse intentions of control, nationalize all the major resource producers to control the purse strings, take over the media outlets for reasons of suppression and the spreading of propaganda, with his ability to connect to the people of Venezuela, it's quite normal to expect people to vote for him, despite what is best for their own self-interests. Lets not also forget that since he has taken control, oil production has gone way down, that the most capable human capital that his country has to offer has left Venezuela, reducing their ability to succeed long-term, while amassing over 2 Billion dollars of wealth for his family, essentially robbing his country through corruption, while railing on his opponents for doing the same despite him being the largest culprit of them all. Sorry, but I give the poor a bit more credit than you do. They know whether they are starving or not, whether they are receiving healthcare or not, whether they have access to education or not. Yes, he amended the constitution. So what? Constitution's are not actually set in stone, to remain immutable for all eternity (being from the US, I realize you'd have difficulty with that concept ). The change was voted on and passed. It's also worth remembering that despite his curbs on the media, most of the media was extremely hostile to Chavez for the whole of his presidency. Yet, he won elections in spite of this. As for this 2 billion dollars claim, find me a credible source (sorry but dubious Miami-based exiles do not count) and I'll believe it. Until then I'll regard it as propaganda and utter garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 My, oh my, a Hugo Chavez thread and the resident Marxists show up to give him a little love. Who woulda thought it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 My, oh my, a Hugo Chavez thread and the resident Marxists show up to give him a little love. Who woulda thought it? Thank you for your well-informed and reasoned contribution to this debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 You are making a specious argument, by suggesting that who people vote for is proof positive of voting for their best self-interests. Lets not confuse populist rhetoric with tangible results. Which country do you think has one of the highest inflation rates in all of South America? Food prices have been soaring, leading to widespread shortages. When food prices rise, who do you think that hurts the most? The poor. Now magnify that times 1000 in a country like Venezuela. So when you have a charasmatic populist like Chavez, who amends the constitution to retain virtually permanent control, then takes over all the media outlets, he in fact does create state-run media, which of course suppresses his opponents rights to free speech and drives home his propaganda of fighting the imperialist Americans (which of course resonates with many uneducated South Americans), and the rich ruling class aristocrats who suck the country dry leaving the poor to fend for themselves. So when you combine his amending of the countries constitution for his perverse intentions of control, nationalize all the major resource producers to control the purse strings, take over the media outlets for reasons of suppression and the spreading of propaganda, with his ability to connect to the people of Venezuela, it's quite normal to expect people to vote for him, despite what is best for their own self-interests. Lets not also forget that since he has taken control, oil production has gone way down, that the most capable human capital that his country has to offer has left Venezuela, reducing their ability to succeed long-term, while amassing over 2 Billion dollars of wealth for his family, essentially robbing his country through corruption, while railing on his opponents for doing the same despite him being the largest culprit of them all. You've missed the point. He built schools and soccer fields in impoverished neighborhoods. He had good intentions. It doesn't matter if your policies result in waste and don't really benefit the people you intended to help. Success is measured in how good it makes us feel that we built an escalator that runs to the top of the favela and gave the poor new soccer balls. Only the rich gain from a strengthening economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Thank you for your well-informed and reasoned contribution to this debate. If you were looking for an intelligent nuanced debate about the pros and cons of Hugo Chavez - well this ain't the place you were looking for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Sorry, but I give the poor a bit more credit than you do. They know whether they are starving or not, whether they are receiving healthcare or not, whether they have access to education or not. Yes, he amended the constitution. So what? Constitution's are not actually set in stone, to remain immutable for all eternity (being from the US, I realize you'd have difficulty with that concept ). The change was voted on and passed. It's also worth remembering that despite his curbs on the media, most of the media was extremely hostile to Chavez for the whole of his presidency. Yet, he won elections in spite of this. As for this 2 billion dollars claim, find me a credible source (sorry but dubious Miami-based exiles do not count) and I'll believe it. Until then I'll regard it as propaganda and utter garbage. You've gotta be !@#$ing kidding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 You've gotta be !@#$ing kidding me. Makes perfect sense to me. If I want to know about economic success and prosperity on a nationwide level, I'm asking people that know nothing about governance or managing money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 If you were looking for an intelligent nuanced debate about the pros and cons of Hugo Chavez - well this ain't the place you were looking for Sorry it's hard to find "pros" from a dictatorship especially being the son of a parent who lived in Venezuela for some 20 years. There is a reason they left for this frozen **** hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 You've missed the point. He built schools and soccer fields in impoverished neighborhoods. He had good intentions. It doesn't matter if your policies result in waste and don't really benefit the people you intended to help. Success is measured in how good it makes us feel that we built an escalator that runs to the top of the favela and gave the poor new soccer balls. Only the rich gain from a strengthening economy. Damn those stupid and ignorant poor for continuing to vote for him. They should realize that it is only economic growth that matters. So what if they continue to live in abject poverty with no access to education or healthcare while the rich get even richer. Eventually the trickle-down effect will mean that their descendants might enjoy a better standard of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Damn those stupid and ignorant poor for continuing to vote for him. They should realize that it is only economic growth that matters. So what if they continue to live in abject poverty with no access to education or healthcare while the rich get even richer. Eventually the trickle-down effect will mean that their descendants might enjoy a better standard of living. I wouldn't say stupid but I would say ignorant. Your statement on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 Damn those stupid and ignorant poor for continuing to vote for him. They should realize that it is only economic growth that matters. So what if they continue to live in abject poverty with no access to education or healthcare while the rich get even richer. Eventually the trickle-down effect will mean that their descendants might enjoy a better standard of living. If you cared so much about the poor why would you endorse a system that all but guarantees that these people remain poor albeit slightly more comfortably? Some humanitarian you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts