Chavez moves on

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I don't understand the debate about state run enterprise efficiency. Any firm with a monopoly or over 10,000 employees is not going to be run efficiently. The only efficiency in those private companies is screwing the employees pay and benefits to pay for the boss big bonus at the end of the year.

To put it poigantly:
Private companies have an interest in efficiency to maximise profits, if for nothing else.
State run monopolies fear neither competition nor financial losses.
I'd say in the last 150 years we have seen the advantages and disadvantages of both.

Perhaps change is a key element, whenever one system unfolds its disadvantages, it will eventually be replaced.

There must be a way to blend the two elements. Unrestricted capitalism isn't desirable and neither is total state control of every aspect of production from raw materials to selling the final product.

What I would envision would be state control of the raw product and private control of selling finished goods. Use the leverage of the government to get raw materials in cheap quantity, sell the refined materials to businesses, then let the businesses make a profit by competing on price and service.

Think about it. We have a system now where the oil companies get their materials dirt cheap with the leverage of using the U.S. military to secure their supplies. So, Big Oil makes a killing while the taxpayer foots the bill for securing the oil. If I'm paying taxes to finance the military then I want to cut out the big oil companies all together. That would immediately take hundreds of billions of dollars and put them back in the pockets of the consumer (the customer) of the government (which is, after all, supposed to be subservient to the people and not the other way around).

There must be a way to figure out a form of democratic state ownership of national resources without it being totalitarian, corrupt, or excessive as capitalism allows.

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by HermantheGerman

social democrats not socialist

social democrats is modern day socialism.

**Whiteshiva** · 12-01-2007, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Wallace

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

China, Vietnam, Scandinavian countries. Is that good enough for you?

Well, not really a good example.

Two of the fastest growing economies of the world, plus three countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) who are consistenly being ranked as amongst the best countries in the world to live in. If these are not good eamples of successful communist and socialist ecnomies I don't know what is.

China is just another corrupt capitalist disaster waiting to happen.

Funny, I have heard people say the same about the US.

**Hootad Binky** · 12-01-2007, 02:54 PM

Venezuela's Chávez tightens grip

By Thomas Catan, Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor Wed Jan 10, 3:00 AM ET

CARACAS, VENEZUELA - As he begins his third presidential term Wednesday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has laid the groundwork for a sharp leftward shift and launched a clampdown on dissent, in what analysts see as a broad-based effort to strengthen his grip on power.

Emboldened by his resounding reelection victory on Dec. 3, Mr. Chávez announced plans this week to nationalize power and telecom companies as part of an accelerated move toward socialism. This comes after he had begun to act on longstanding threats to close media outlets aligned with the opposition, refusing to renew the broadcast license of Venezuela's oldest commercial television station, RCTV.

In the past week, he has purged his cabinet of ministers deemed insufficiently radical, bringing in a new group of loyalists that includes his brother, Adan. He has begun to merge the more than 20 parties in his governing coalition into a single force under his control. And, under a controversial new law, he is set to take control of nongovernmental organizations that could oppose his government.

"I don't think there is a lot of ambiguity about what Chávez is doing," says Michael Shifter, an analyst at Interamerican Dialogue in Washington, DC. "He wants to hold on to power for as long as possible, and even though he just won a resounding reelection, he doesn't want to take any chances of dissent building."

Crackdown on dissent
The Venezuelan president's decision to close RCTV, which has been broadcasting since 1953, has been met with strong criticism from the Organization of American States (OAS), the Catholic Church, and from press freedom campaigners like Reporters Without Borders. José Miguel Insulza, OAS secretary general, said the move smacked of "censorship against freedom of speech and a warning to other media, encouraging them to limit their operations so as not to face the same fate."

But Chávez, who referred to Mr. Insulza as an "idiot," says he will defy any international criticism.

Chávez is also moving to take control of civic groups, some of which have been critical of his government. Under a proposed law now in Congress, NGOs will have to reregister with the government, even if they have been operating legally for years. Foreign funding will have to pass through the government, and NGOs would have to open their files to anyone that requests it. Human rights campaigners say it would effectively end their work.

"If approved, it will [effectively] outlaw all nongovernmental organizations" working in Venezuela, says Liliana Ortega of the Venezuelan human rights group, Cofavic. "There will only be groups approved by the government."

Amnesty International has called on Chávez to revoke the bill, with a spokesperson saying it would "restrict the legitimate work of human rights defenders in Venezuela." But Chávez shows no signs of retreating.

Chávez is also gearing up to change the constitution to allow his indefinite re-election - and has vowed to remain in power until 2021.

Mr. Shifter believes Chávez's effort to change the constitution could meet with substantial opposition within his own coalition. That could be a reason why Chávez is moving to take control of both supporters and critical NGOs.

"He would be in better shape to assure his power if there are no independent, critical civic organizations that could offer a channel for dissent and challenge to the regime," says Shifter."

more at: Venezuela's ChÃ¡vez tightens grip - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by stroller

...to nationalise US corporation owned electricity utility, as he approaches his third term

Originally Posted by Butterfly

if only we could do the same in Europe, destroying public utility services in the name of freedom is a silly excercise

Originally Posted by raycarey

63% of the country voted for him, and he made no secret that he was going to continue the journey toward socialism.

i hope they are successful.

Did he tell Venezuelans he was going to close down opposition television stations, control all NGO's and remain in power until 2021? Guess he forgot to mention that.

**Little Chuchok** · 12-01-2007, 03:24 PM

^sterling chap that Chávez.....

**attaboy** · 12-01-2007, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by Wallace

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

China, Vietnam, Scandinavian countries. Is that good enough for you?

Well, not really a good example.

Two of the fastest growing economies of the world, plus three countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) who are consistenly being ranked as amongst the best countries in the world to live in. If these are not good eamples of successful communist and socialist ecnomies I don't know what is.

China is just another corrupt capitalist disaster waiting to happen.

Funny, I have heard people say the same about the US.

Yeah well, people have been saying that year after year and in the case of surasak, post after post.

**Whiteshiva** · 12-01-2007, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by attaboy

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Originally Posted by Wallace

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

China, Vietnam, Scandinavian countries. Is that good enough for you?

Well, not really a good example.

Two of the fastest growing economies of the world, plus three countries (Norway, Sweden and Denmark) who are consistenly being ranked as amongst the best countries in the world to live in. If these are not good eamples of successful communist and socialist ecnomies I don't know what is.

China is just another corrupt capitalist disaster waiting to happen.

Funny, I have heard people say the same about the US.

Yeah well, people have been saying that year after year and in the case of surasak, post after post.

And people have been saying it about China for quite a while as well.....

**stroller** · 12-01-2007, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

And people have been saying it about China for quite a while as well.....

...and are now saying it about Venezuela!

I think we might be seeing the beginning of 'true' South-American independence, this time through economic reforms which are beyong US intervention, at least for as long as their military will be busy in the M.-E.

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I don't understand the debate about state run enterprise efficiency. Any firm with a monopoly or over 10,000 employees is not going to be run efficiently. The only efficiency in those private companies is screwing the employees pay and benefits to pay for the boss big bonus at the end of the year. It's simple as that. Now state enterprises obviously have decency and think their employees should benefit from better pay and benefits. is that fundamentaly wrong ? the issue of employee benefits is a different matter from the strategic ownership of national assets. If we can seperate those issues, the public at large would understand the need for nationalization, instead of debating jealously about employees benefits in state companies.

If you really believe what you wrote to be the truth then you're living in a dream world.

Socialism is great in theory, but the simple truth is that socialism's curse of nationalising utilies and major companies doesn't work, and the problems continue to mount up the longer they stay nationalised, as has been seen wherever there are nationalised utilies.

Privatisation with government set criteria to follow is by far the best way forward, but for sure it's not perfect, but what is?

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

If you really believe what you wrote to be the truth then you're living in a dream world.

This is unfortunately the conclusions I have come to after seeing the abuses of privatization and how nationalization was better off at the end. Just call it insight. Thinking that privatization will solve anything is OTOH a bit of a big dream.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Socialism is great in theory, but the simple truth is that socialism's curse of nationalising utilies and major companies doesn't work, and the problems continue to mount up the longer they stay nationalised, as has been seen wherever there are nationalised utilies.

You have a 70s view of socialism, this is not what it is about. It's about controlling national assets so they don't get abused by private shareholders. The debate about big utilities efficiency is long gone, the waste exists as much in private companies as in the public sector. You are stuck in the past and that view of yours reflects it. Sorry to say. And no I wasn't always a nationalization apologist, but as stroller pointed out, we need alternative policies in our economic system, even if they are in contradiction over time, it's all about balance and adjustment and there is no other way to do it.

**man with no head** · 12-01-2007, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

And people have been saying it about China for quite a while as well.....

...and are now saying it about Venezuela!

I think we might be seeing the beginning of 'true' South-American independence, this time through economic reforms which are beyong US intervention, at least for as long as their military will be busy in the M.-E.

I think that's what scares Washington the most: a powerful South American country that not only thumbs its nose at the imperialist Yankee nation up north but also sets an example for others to follow.

If Cuba gets enough investment to pump the oil located near the island it will be another nail in the coffin of Yankee power in the western hemisphere.

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

You have a 70s view of socialism

Yep, I did economics when I was 5.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

It's about controlling national assets so they don't get abused by private shareholders.

But, if a private company has built up those assets then the state has no right to take them away. Chavez has stolen private assets many times recently, which there is no justification for, as it is theft.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

The debate about big utilities efficiency is long gone, the waste exists as much in private companies as in the public sector.

It exists, of course, but in nowhere near the same levels. And they do little or no R&D.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

You are stuck in the past and that view of yours reflects it.

No. You're deluded.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it's all about balance and adjustment and there is no other way to do it.

I agree. Private utilites need to have a government body overseeing them, but nationalisation isn't balance, it's overkill and a backward step.

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Yep, I did economics when I was 5.

and that reflects in your arguments. Probably too young to get it then

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

But, if a private company has built up those assets then the state has no right to take them away. Chavez has stolen private assets many times recently, which there is no justification for, as it is theft.

We are not talking any kind of businesses here, mostly natural resources (Gas, Oil) and Utilities (Power, TelCos), those are expansive assets to build and distribute and usually require the government to sponsor them. You would have a case if it was built from scratch by private investment, but it's not the case. See surasak arguments for a better explanation. Those companies were government owned in the first place and were cheaply traded by demaguoge and corrupted politicians (Tatcher was both)

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

I agree. Private utilites need to have a government body overseeing them, but nationalisation isn't balance, it's overkill and a backward step.

Well that's an opinion, but unfortunately once you give control of those assets to private companies it's very hard for any outside organizations to control what's going on inside those companies, so at the end the control is ineffective and inefficient and a complete waste of time, and so the abuse still happens.

**lom** · 12-01-2007, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Those companies were government owned in the first place and were cheaply traded by demaguoge and corrupted politicians (Tatcher was both)

About time to privatise BBC isn't it ? They should not waste taxpayers money on documentaries which are of interest only to a limited audience.
Soap operas for a wide audience is the way to go.

**stroller** · 12-01-2007, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

it's very hard for any outside organizations to control what's going on inside those companies, so at the end the control is ineffective and inefficient and a complete waste of time, and so the abuse still happens.

That's congesture and speculation.
Sure it is 'hard' to assess what's going on in a large corporation, but it is being done to an extent, lots of regulatory legislation exists and is enforced.

The problem arises when corporations become more powerful than states, when polititians are on the boards or lobbyists become polititians - this is so with a number of international corporations, the oil-industry is a classic one.
Hence the understandable but extreme move on Chavez' part to claim back power and control.

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

We are not talking any kind of businesses here, mostly natural resources (Gas, Oil) and Utilities (Power, TelCos), those are expansive assets to build and distribute and usually require the government to sponsor them. You would have a case if it was built from scratch by private investment, but it's not the case.

Wrong. Much of what Chavez has stolen and is intending to steal is owned and was built up by private companies. A couple of months ago Chavez stole 3 golf courses to build low cost housing. Fine in the principal of wanting to build affordable housing, but wrong because it's theft and it was uneccessary to use that land as there were other tracts of land that could've been used. Aparently, the golf course owners weren't sympathetic to Chavez's vision of a backward socialist state.

There's plenty more tales in a similar vein. But, I still stand by the fact that experience shows Chavez is leading the country backwards. Give it 15 years and I will say "I told you so!".

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

A couple of months ago Chavez stole 3 golf courses to build low cost housing

Yes in that case this is robbery.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Aparently, the golf course owners weren't sympathetic to Chavez's vision of a backward socialist state.

Apparently it's mostly a political move, hardly a socialist cause. He could have chosen another place for those cheap housing but didn't. More like a question of disrespect and punishments for his opponents. I don't see where socialism noble cause has anything to do with this. You are barking at the wrong tree.

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

I don't see where socialism noble cause has anything to do with this. You are barking at the wrong tree.

Probably, they don't like the idea of their country going into decline as it is starting to now.

**Butterfly** · 12-01-2007, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Probably, they don't like the idea of their country going into decline

decline for who ? for the elite ? obviously the poors disagree. Of course, robbers don't like to be robbed.

**blackgang** · 12-01-2007, 09:38 PM

I still do not think that public utilities should be under govt domain, no more than the newspapers or radio, TV, phones or com.
When govt takes over then there is censure of news and events, which is taking place in Venezuela as well as Thailand, Phone and com services that are run just for the hell of it and you get what service they want you to have for the price they want to charge, like in Mexico and Thailand.
I can call broadband on my puter to USA for 2 cents a min, Mexico for 20 cents a minute and Thailand for 29 cents a minute.
Mexico and Thailand have old copper hard wire birds nests on all the poles and antiquated switch gear and is govt controlled, same in Mexico with govt control, while the US is a free market with a choice of services at a good price and going thru mostly fiber optics at a great speed.
It hasn't always been that way tho, When Ma Bell had a monopoly you took what they would give you, the govt broke that up and more carriers came online, every one was a drop in prices and an improvement in services, where a 3 min call from Frisco to Chicago was $7.00 under Ma Bell,, now it is less than 30 cents tops.
I do not see where nationalization has ever done anything good for any country, I bet that every service is N Korea is also Nationalized, they got it so good..555

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

I do not see where nationalization has ever done anything good for any country, I bet that every service is N Korea is also Nationalized, they got it so good..555

Still waiting for one of these deluded fools to give some info about that.

**stroller** · 12-01-2007, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Probably, they don't like the idea of their country going into decline as it is starting to now.

3 golf course playgrounds taken away from the rich kids and turned into housing projects for poor people doesn't look much like a "decline" to me.

Bring it on, Chavez!

**blackgang** · 12-01-2007, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Probably, they don't like the idea of their country going into decline

decline for who ? for the elite ? obviously the poors disagree. Of course, robbers don't like to be robbed.

Why don't you tell that to Cuba and N Korea, there the poor think it is OK and do believe in Fearless Leader, but of coarse their incoming new is kinda tweeked before they ever get to hear it.

**Marmite the Dog** · 12-01-2007, 09:44 PM

Yeah! Take from those who work hard and made something of themselves and give to the lazy masses! Way to go!

**stroller** · 12-01-2007, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

When govt takes over then there is censure of news and events, which is taking place in Venezuela as well as Thailand

The censure of news in Thailand is not related to state ownership of the media.

One could argue privately owned media are more subject to censure and control, because the owner(s) exert pressure according to their own political agenda and profit orientation, whereas state-owned ones have the luxury not to have to maximise profits, and the controlling admins and overseing bodies change every few years.

Thread: Chavez moves on

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions