Why Chávez loves what he hates
In an interview, Hugo Chávez blames Venezuela's recession on "rampant, irresponsible capitalism" and asks President Obama to "forget his country's imperial pretensions," without acknowledging that the very high oil prices Chávez depends upon are the direct result of global capitalism and U.S. imperial pretensions.
As Erasure puts it so succinctly, "I love to hate you." Love and hate, what a beautiful combination.
9 comments:
It is highly doubtful that Chavez --or any other Venezuelan politician, for that matter-- "loves" Venezuela's dependence upon oil revenues. It just so happens that those are the cards that Venezuela was dealt.
Is there really any doubt amongst serious thinkers that rampant, irresponsible (US-style) capitalism is reponsible for the economic crisis that has affected everyone in the world? Doesn't every leader in the world blame the what happened in the US markets for the trouble they are in? I don't think that is a very controvertial. You can also blame most of the economic crises in the last 30 years on our religous faith in the wonder free markets and. Even Angela Merkel and her *(pro market) conservatives have squarely blamed market speculators, short sales and other fundamental tools of capitalism for the most recent PIGS crisis.
Is there also any doubt that this capitalism, which puts profits above all else, is ruining the environment, threatening much of the life on earth with extinction?
I guess we are not supposed to hate these things, but some of us do. And some even go beyond words and try to create a new world order, based on human values and sustainability. This is why the powers in Washington love to hate Chavez.
Chavez has called many times for an end to the volitility in the oil market. He's proposed a band that prices could float within. Like anyone who has tried to make a plan, he is no fan of not knowing how many resources he will have to work with in a year.
And Imperialism is not about increasing energy prices. It is about controlling resources that were not yours (welcome BP to Iraq). The fact that oil prices spiked during 2 years of a 7 year war does not mean much.
So, to say that Chavez is hypcritical for not ackowledgingthe benefits bestowed by capitalist imperialism is more than a little disingenous. Did he benefit for a few years - sure. Is he (and much of the world) hurting now - sure. The real question, is wants to continue on this path (Obama) and who does not (Chavez).
Don't you crackers know that this 'hate--Chvez shit is what Greg has to do to get in good with the tenure review board (full of stodgy, fake-intellectual whores).
Get used to it.
Or, Greg can simply be an indoctrinated, non-critical thinker (Occam's razor, anyone?).
Is there really any doubt amongst serious thinkers that rampant, irresponsible (US-style) capitalism is reponsible for the economic crisis that has affected everyone in the world? Doesn't every leader in the world blame the what happened in the US markets for the trouble they are in?
The hilarious irony about this whole thing is that the unintended consequences of the predatory, speculative capitalism that produced the recessionary bubble have done much more to lower poverty worldwide than most of the half-brained socialist-collectivist schemes that Chavez touts.
Wall Street induced the housing bubble and inflated consumer demand in the us and europe, which in turn fueled the manufacturing boom in China and India, whose need for resources generated high prices for commodities in places like Latin America. As a result, hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians were yanked out of poverty, and the increased demand of these folks fueled commodity prices rises that resulted in millions of people in places like Brazil and Peru joining the middle class.
Needless to say, demand for oil from SUV-loving Americans and from newly prosperous Chinese and Indians created the conditions that forced oil prices up, pouring billions of dollars into Chavez coffers. And outside of the hundreds of billions that were stolen or actually got to the needy, hundreds of billions were wasted on silly socialist schemes that result in things like 2000 containers of food rotting.
Real smart of Chavez, wasting money on schemes that failed
everywhere else in the world.
Smart countries figured out this boom wouldnt last and put money away and/or made long term strategic investments. Chavez, of course didn't. Thats why his empire is crumbling.
The hilarious irony about this whole thing is that the unintended consequences of the predatory, speculative capitalism that produced the recessionary bubble have done much more to lower poverty worldwide than most of the half-brained socialist-collectivist schemes that Chavez touts.
Of really? Well in Venezuela extreme poverty went from 1 of 4 Venezuelans to 1 in 20. And that only counts income - not the various programs and subsidies that do wonders to help poor people get by. I don't think any other nation in the world can match that record. Perhaps China may come close? I can certainly tell you that the poorest regions of the world have seen very little of this poverty reduction you speak of.
And it was not the buying of selling of Western real estate for too much money that powered the Chinese economy - an absurd notion evidenced by the fact that the recession barely made a blip on China's GDP. China's remarkable development plans and strategies are the real savior of the world's economy. Of course, having a development plan is an affront to good capitalists like you.
Smart countries figured out this boom wouldnt last and put money away and/or made long term strategic investments. Chavez, of course didn't. Thats why his empire is crumbling.
Venezuela has more money tucked away, and more investment projects, than anywhere else in the region. Venezuela's debt levels are amongst the lowest in the world and everywhere you look there are huge new long-term infrastructure and energy projects. What the heck are you talking about?
Finally, like Greg has noted, we have heard this nonsense about the end of Chavez before. With a higher approval rating than Obama (up 6% in the past few months, according to datanalysis) I think his fate is far from sealed. The upcoming elections will be huge...
And it was not the buying of selling of Western real estate for too much money that powered the Chinese economy - .
WOW! are you really that clueless?
again-
Real estate prices in the U.S. go sky-high. Banks in U.S. issue first and second mortgages to tons of people, and finance mega-developments. Lending institutions show tons of asset-backed loans on books, their share prices go up. World-wide people invest in US banks, developers etc.
Folks with money from selling house or refinancing spend a lot of money on all sorts of stuff. Construction, real estate jobs get hot, put more money in peoples pockets. Consumption goes up..demand for Chinese-made goes up enormously. Chinese factories and industry financed with American and European funny money. More Chinese employed from this huge boost in factory orders. These people buy more stuff, increasing Chinese economy. The driving force has been its exports to the hot markets of the world, and now it has created enough of a domestic market to cushion the blow of lower orders due to crisis.
That is called putting money away, and investing smartly long-term
WOW! are you really that clueless?
Look, I get that there is some relationship between the Western and Chinese economies - of course. But China has shown to be a force of its own, now driving much of the growth itself. This is not because of a few years of a housing bubble in the West. China has been growing at an unbelievable rate (more than 7%) for the most part of the last 30 years. This is a time when growth in the West has been the slowest in history. So your story of a China dependent on US capitalist excess is deeply flawed.
and now it has created enough of a domestic market to cushion the blow of lower orders due to crisis. That is called putting money away, and investing smartly long-term.
This story is actually not so clear. Private consumption in China has actually fallen as a % of GDP for some time - but particularly of late.
Want to know who has really vastly expanded their domestic market though? You guessed it - Venezuela. Here is the growth rates in private consumption for the 2003-2007:
15.4%, 15.7%, 17.9%, 19.1%
These gains in consumption are even larger than the growth in GDP (which was also faster than China during this period). So Venezuela has actually been doing a better job of creating a consumer class than China...
But your whole original point was that we all must kneel at the thrown of excessive capitalism beause it is curing global poverty. Of course it is...
Look, I get that there is some relationship between the Western and Chinese economies - of course. But China has shown to be a force of its own, now driving much of the growth itself. This is not because of a few years of a housing bubble in the West. China has been growing at an unbelievable rate (more than 7%) for the most part of the last 30 years. This is a time when growth in the West has been the slowest in history. So your story of a China dependent on US capitalist excess is deeply flawed.
One more time-
Look, China's explosive growth these past decades is due to exports of manufactured goods, including manufacturing done by multinationals. China built itself up by manufacture and export.
China's richest buyers are Western economies. These countries led by the United States experienced an asset-bubble. That bubble acted as a sort of "stimulus package" - putting money in hands of consumers, banks, the financial service industry, local and national governments, construction industry, capital goods manufacturers, global stock exchanges, 3rd World exporters of raw materials and food. There was a huge demand for Chinese goods everything for TV's, cell-phones, Drywall for construction. It took an existing trend and made it even bigger. But you can not deny that the demand and other effects of the bubble economy, (including the availability of credit for investment) spurred Chinese growth in a major way. And this growth lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty.
Which brings to the bigger point. Which is that China was in a position to benefit so much from the assett bubble because it had made its economy more open to the West.
Allowing and encouraging foreign direct investment - including manufacturing by multinationals. Decentralizing State Enterprises as well as granting them managerial economy. Transforming many State-owned enterprises into mixed-capital companies, and in many cases effectively privatizing them. Ending state monopolies in many areas, allowing competition even to and between state enterprises. Getting to allow for greater market participation. Joining the World Trade Organization and submitting to its rules. Wholesale adoption of Western technology and managerial know-how. Allowing market prices to dictate prices and demand. Protecting property rights for the first time.
In other words, China started out as a rigid, collectivistic economy and has gradually become more capitalistic. The more it opens its economy the richer it has become and the lower its poverty levels. Chavez on the other hand, seems to be taking his country in exactly the opposite direction, and it shows because the economy is shrinking
Boli, if only the story of China's remarkable growth was so easy and convenient (they owe it all to the US economy and US ideas). Unfortauntely, you show no intention of acknowledging even the most basic facts that argue to the contrary. Forget the history if you want. Even today, China violates almost every single neo-liberal dictat in their economy. Despite the growth, China is losing much of its soul and creating nasty social tendencies. The trend today is towards greater concentration on inequality, poverty and social cohesion - things capitalism can never resolve.
Post a Comment