Venezuela's Chavez says U.S. ambassador could be expelled if he keeps 'meddling'
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — President Hugo Chavez warned he could expel the U.S. ambassador if he keeps "meddling in Venezuela's affairs," saying the diplomat went too far by suggesting U.S. investors should receive fair compensation when Venezuela nationalizes its largest telephone company.
"Mr. ambassador, go meddle in the affairs of your own country," Chavez said during a speech Thursday night, referring to Ambassador William Brownfield.
"If you continue meddling in Venezuela's affairs, first of all, you are violating the Geneva accords and getting yourself involved in a serious violation and could ... be declared persona non- grata and would have to leave the country," Chavez added.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-01...htm?POE=NEWISVA

Chavez has threatened to nationalize US assets as part of taking over their Telephone company.

Questions for the debate:
How should the US government respond if this takes place?

Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?

What else can the US do to protect our private companies from uncompensated appropriation by Socialists, and US haters like Chavez?

How should the US government respond if this takes place?

Nothing- it is not our country, not our decision. I am sure Exxon has enough money to buy the population- it is thier bad corporate citizenship that created this problem in the first place- we have seen the creative accounting first hand here in Alaska - they were straight up ripping off the US treasury and Alaska as well- but, here in Alaska and the US- they can afford to rip us off for years, and tie up the courts for years with the case- and in the end, any fines they may have incurred is chicken feed compared to what they have stolen. Those oil companies don't deserve squat from the US goverment, in fact, most of the board of directors should be in jail, for thier theft and fraud. I am not against oil companies for drilling or selling oil, it is thier not playing by the rules of the country they are operating in, and thier shady practises that I abhor.

Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?

LOL- sure- only most of our oil comes from Canada and Venezuala- so, who you going to buy more oil off of? Russia? Our good "friend" like Saudi Arabia? - that is one of the funniest questions in AD today.

What else can the US do to protect our private companies from uncompensated appropriation by Socialists, and US haters like Chavez?

Nothing- no one in America forced those companies to do biz in those areas- they roll the dices- they takes thier chances. I am doing biz with Russia- I could get robbed or scammed at any time, by the goverment no less- should I expect the US goverment to "do something" about it if it happens? OR, as a businessman, is it my PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to protect my own interests?

How should the US government respond if this takes place?

Well it should try to work out a diplomatic solution that will allow the US to keep its assets, but if that doesnt work than they should pack up and go elsewhere because Chavez is taking the first step towards the economic catastrophe that is protectionaism. I say we let him bury his economy if he wishes, not our problem.

Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?

As CruisingRam, it wouldn't work out. If they want to do business, we can do business. If they don't want to do business after we relay the economic opportunity they are passing up, then thats their business.

What else can the US do to protect our private companies from uncompensated appropriation by Socialists, and US haters like Chavez?

CruisingRam is correct...these companies went into the situation knowing the risks and they may end up losing. That is the nature of risky investments and of the market.

I echo what CR and leder have written. Companies take a risk doing business in volatile marketplaces. Sometimes, they win; sometimes, they lose. Thems the breaks...

How should the US government respond if this takes place?

With diplomacy. There's little the US can do here. Venezuela is a democracy with oil. We should be happy about this.

Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?

I suppose you could try. Good luck with that. If I were to consider boycotting oil companies, I would look to those doing business in places where things like genocide occurs (Sudan, for example). But, then I believe liberal economics even in poisonous places on the whole bring everyone forward.

What else can the US do to protect our private companies from uncompensated appropriation by Socialists, and US haters like Chavez?

I don't think the US should do anything. Venezuela may be socialist and Chavez may be a US hater, but he was fairly and democratically elected. No matter what happens, Venezuela isn't threatening to cut off our oil supply; he just doesn't want US businesses profiting from it. Whatever... I think this is absolutely the wrong approach and will backfire, but that's Venezuela's choice, for now.

How should the US government respond if this takes place?
We should launch an all-out invasion and have more soldiers die to save the profits of these corporations. We'll call it Operation Return on Investment. It's just utterly unfair when somebody tries to stop rich investors from taking advantage of poor brown people. What greater cause to die for than exploitation of the poor?

We ought to celebrate this move and do the same at home.

Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?


What else can the US do to protect our private companies from uncompensated appropriation by Socialists, and US haters like Chavez?
Chavez loves the United States, he just doesn't like our government. Now, some of you may be tricked into thinking that we are a representative government, and if he hates the government then he hates the citizens. But we are not a representative government so that paradigm is false.

"Our private companies?" They're not my private companies. Why do I care if a company doesn't make money from an overseas investment? If you are such a patriot Ted then why don't you condemn these private companies for sending American jobs overseas in the first place? Apparently these private companies don't love America, they love money. That's why these companies went to Venezuela, to get cheap labor and now Chavez is taking that away. Poor investors.

Questions for the debate:
How should the US government respond if this takes place?
Embargo all telecommunications originating in, going to, or routing through Venezuela that go through American telecom. Simply put, if the gov't of Venezuela feels it is appropriate to steal American property, then it is appropriate for our government to insure that said property does not profit the gov't of Venezuela.

Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?
As a gov't action, no. As private citizens, yup.

What else can the US do to protect our private companies from uncompensated appropriation by Socialists, and US haters like Chavez?
The telecommunications embargo would probably make it unnecessary for any further action...

WTH does Exxon have to do with nationalizing the Venezuelan phone company? nada... But let's not pass up any opportunity to bash on Big Oil, eh CR?

True, he was fairly and democratically elected, 6 years after his failed coup. A few years after his failed coup, Adolf Hitler was democratically elected. Another democratically elected chap was Benito Mussolino,who was big on nationalizing businesses. And let's not forget Chavez's rule by decree. The upshot is, so what if he was democratically elected? That doesn't give him the right to steal other people's property, especially people who don't even have a vote, i.e. foreign investors.

So you advocate stealing?

How should the US government respond if this takes place?

Watch closely, we might learn something. Why is telecom being nationalized? What does this truly mean to foreign telecom investors? Does this move get rid of a Bernie Ebbers type (busted US telecom pirate)?

Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?

Oh sure, and push for alternative energy. Great idea.

What else can the US do to protect our private companies from uncompensated appropriation by Socialists, and US haters like Chavez?

I don't know if there's no compensation. Perhaps this is like eminent domain, where the compensation is never enough but it's there. Besides, does Chavez really hate the US? He did offer to help us out of an energy jam created by our leaders. Yeah, it was a political stunt, but we learned more about why our energy bills sometimes go out the roof (ala Enron, thank yew berry much, free enterprise).

Chavez is one of the needles in our crooked capitalists' side. I'm sure he'll be compared to Hitler -- oops, too late, already happened. Poland's a long ways away, I guess they can relax. Perhaps Mexico should worry? Naw.

We once had nationalized telecom. It was called Ma Bell. There were certain advantages to such a government-enforced monopoly, like reliable service. We survived that period of Socialism, and in fact complained loudly when it went away, some of us. Forget how I felt about it. Probably didn't give a hoot, being a struggling working class hero at the time. MCI became big, and that eventually provided a pretty good job. But now Verizon's got it and though not a monopoly, part of the oligopoly.

Bottom line: Pay attention and take notes.

Sorry- must have been some confusion- I was talking about his nationalizing of the oil.

And Bikerdad- as AM pointed out- Bernie Ebbers anyone?

American corporations are corrupt and in power, have been for awhile. I find it very hard to weep for any American corporation that loses thier shirts overseas. Very few are "good corporate citizens" and usually finance bad guys, and when they lose, they cry to thier vassals here in the US. They just picked the wrong side in this case probably. Wouldn't have had any problem had they picked Chavez in the first place.

I don't think Chavez is socialist in his heart anyway- I think he is power hungry and slick. He knows where his support is- and the anti-GW stance plays well to his audience.

AND BD- Chavez's popularity among the poor, and his approval rating is higher than GWs- and his election was FAR FAR FAR more legit than GW.

Don't point a finger at foriegn elected officials, when we have four pointing right back at ourselves. Chavez has more credibility in the world than GW, and for a good reason.

I doubt this would be practical. Either (1) the US government would have to order US telecom companies to do this or (2) all US telecom companies would have to choose to do this on their own. In other words, if (1), then you'd get government intervention in business. Why would it be permitted for US government to control business but proscribed for Venezuela? Or if (2), then you'd have US business engaging in a "trust" which I believe Venezuela could legally sue against in US courts.

Practically speaking, this nationalization of assets will be reflected in higher costs for Venezuelan citizens. Telecoms will just charge more for international exchanges. It's a completely self-defeating act. The US shouldn't do anything as the market will reflect the true cost for Venezuela eventually.


Umm... Hitler? Mussolini? Come on now, BD. Anyone else you feel the need to bring up? Pol-pot? Stalin? Hannibal Lector?

I totally agree- he might get lucky, and be a better manager, and save money, or, my guess is, he doesn't know squat about this biz, and it will be inefficient and bloated, and the citizens will pay more. However, which citizens pay more will be very important to Chavez- I don't think he will sweat it if the rich pay more, he will use it to subsidize the poor, in which case, Chavez loses nothing in his political realm, and gains everything by standing up to America (from a global standpoint, as far as most of the world trusts Venuzuala vs US as a hegomonic (is that a word? ) threat)

How should the US government respond if this takes place?

Not much to do, really. The U.S. government's diplomatic line, as given by ambassador Brownfield in the USA Today story, is that Venezuela has a "sovereign right" to nationalize, but that it should be done "in a transparent and legal way, and to offer fair and quick compensation." That statement prompted Chavez to accuse Brownfield of violating the Geneva Conventions. You go, Hugo. Speak that truth to power.

Of course, this nationalization is going to be popular with people who see everything through the lens of imperialism: The forces of global capital have been stealing the resources of poor brown people, etc., etc. That's the default narrative of the Left. I'm sure if I walk down to the local socialist bookstore, I can find someone to explain how Darfur is really a case of brown people being exploited by global capitalism.

Well, maybe you can make that argument about the oil business -- though Venezuela's oil reserves have been nationalized since 1976 -- but telecommunications? Our imperialist phone companies paid $1.8 billion in 1991 for a 40% stake in Venezuela's national phone company, CANTV. At the time, less than 10% of Venezuelans had telephone service, and the average wait time for a new telephone line was eight years. In short, Venezuela's telephone infrastructure and service in 1991 was much like Cuba's today.

Today, more than half of Venezuelans have telephone service -- mostly mobile lines. That wouldn't have been possible without foreign investment.


Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?

That's one idea. Here's another:

Two words Regime Change

NASCAR should be given control of this company and Brand it NASCAR Gas and give it to NASCAR fans except for Kevin Harvick fans, they should get none.

Total anihilation. Leave no stone unturned kill them all let Exxon sort them out.


***


Hi my name is Baphoments Advocate and I want to be your next Ugliest American.

Hmm, good point Jobius- I amend my argument to yours- that is indeed the US's right.

Gee AM, it almost looks like you quite admire Hugo Chavez. Why stop there? How about we start to shut down any opposition media (Link). Or how about we remove term limits altogether (Link).

Looks like Venezuela is going to become the socialists dream you have been hoping for..

I would also refer you to Jobius's solid post on how inept Venezuela's telecommunications were before US companies arrived.

Venezuela's Chavez says U.S. ambassador could be expelled if he keeps 'meddling'
How should the US government respond if this takes place?

I'm thinking they can stand and clap, just clap or if they are really serious, start take notes first recognizing corruption and then formulate steps to tackle the problem. There are many positive lessons people could draw from this and shed light on pressing domestic issues. Issues like Clear Channel's media consolidation and the loss of emergency radio service.

CANTV has been seen by Venezuelans as an inefficient media outlet, not too far from America's Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage holders. CANTV is about as successful. (not at all) Exerting state control over failing assets is normal behavior, both in America and Canada.

Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?
Since Chavez was dropping his American export and redirecting the remaining crude to China this may be exactly what he wants people to do. Do you feel a Chavez el-presedente dance coming on yet?

What else can the US do to protect our private companies from uncompensated appropriation by Socialists, and US haters like Chavez?

You've linked one article. Only one article. By itself this is not sufficient to label this "attack of the socialists" especially since a similar attempt at monopolizing was made to block China's bid with Unocal.

Furthermore, there may be hidden motives if CANTV had any affiliation with Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) which was directly involved in Chavez's coup. If the link between the two can be proven, then the support of the ambassador can be truly seen as meddling. If this is the case then the emphasis should shift from Chavez and onto American diplomatic protocol.

Even if the proof linking the two does not surface I am confident about a less than honest media outlet that is need of reform and the dangers of private media are very applicable to all of us.

Venezuela's Chavez says U.S. ambassador could be expelled if he keeps 'meddling'
How should the US government respond if this takes place?

I would hope this government or administration would express anything in nothing more then speeches. I don’t know how you would file a small response to this question overall. I simply would hope that it would result typically with us doing no business with them, though I don’t know how much that would anger Americas oil monkey though.

Should we , in turn Boycott their oil company CITGO in the US?

Sure, get rid of oil, there has to be something else to derive energy from.

What else can the US do to protect our private companies from uncompensated appropriation by Socialists, and US haters like Chavez?

Practice the fine art of diplomacy, something I would say we lack or have an us first diplomacy, while not wrong I guess I don’t think it to far fetched to think others then will follow suit. On that note I don’t know what you could expect when multinational corporations run ashore in such an environment or dealings, I don’t care to have our military doing business for them though.

Other people pointed out the obvious things that America could do about Chavez nationalizing US Assets. One of the obvious things is that America could sue in the International Courts. The other obvious thing is to do some tit for tat and put up tariffs on Venezuela's oil.

But I think that America has to prove that Capitalism really is better than Socialism. And to do that, America must get its house in order. In the other debate threads, people debated the problems like the bloated federal budget, the healthcare crisis in America, and the failing schools. When Chavez offered discounted oil for some of the inner city poor people in America, he was doing so to publically show the world that there were many Americans who got left behind during America's economic booms. If America were a shining city on a hill instead of trying to export democracy by military force, we could stand up and honestly tell Mr. Chavez that Socialism just isn't going to work.

Wait a minute, Trouble. CANTV is the national phone company, and the link you provide doesn't support your point:


I have yet to see a credible argument that re-nationalizing the phone company would be in any way helpful.




I read the Zmag article you linked, and they make a decent case against RCTV. But CANTV is the phone company, not the "putschist" broadcast company. And I'm afraid I have little trust for Zmag. I don't think they're dishonest, but they're full of the kind of reflexive ideological leftists I was talking about earlier: people who will happily explain how Darfur is an example of Western capitalism exploiting brown people.

“No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.” - Thomas Jefferson

“A free press can of course be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom it will never be anything but bad. . . . Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better, whereas enslavement is a certainty of the worse.” - Albert Camus

“Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element. Public life gradually falls asleep, a few dozen party leaders of inexhaustible energy and boundless experience direct and rule. Such conditions must inevitably cause a brutalization of public life: attempted assassinations, shootings of hostages, etc.” - Rosa Luxembourg

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

The company was privatized in 1991 Jobius. 92 if you follow the blog. I was careful choosing my words when I said inefficient as opposed to debt-laden. I should have clarified. Don't you see an apples to oranges comparison with comparing phone coverage 1990 back before cell phone use came into vogue? Wireless and broadband communications technology hadn't gotten off the ground yet and attributing this to government ineptitude at this point seems....premature. If I compared my local telephone company during the same time period before the explosive growth in service it was would shame era of late 80s and then some.

But you are correct, posting at 1:30 in the morning does nothing for one's attentiveness and missing this has hurt my point.



Your point, my bad. This does explain why it was privatized back in '91. But I can't bring myself to villify Chavez considering my own telephone company which is provincially owned does much the same thing. In my case we have a large company spinning off small new companies and then buying them back after a few years and bring them back under government control.

Does this absolve Chavez completely? No. But I can think of numerous examples in the telecomm industry where unprofitable model companies are sold off and then reacquired at a later date once they are shown to be profitable. Such practice is not isolated to Venezuela but to all the developed word and to hold Chavez accountable for this while ignoring others seems hypocritical.



I don't argue a better business model, only the business cycle of divorcing a bloated company, downsizing it, taking on risk, going through change, and then reincorporating it back into the fold. I can make this case anywhere in the american hemisphere both municipally and and federally, and apply this behavior to telecommunications, oil and gas exploration, mining, steel, and biochemical.

This is why I can't understand the cause for alarm, this practice is more common than one thinks.

Putin is doing much the same thing with Gazprom's competition. To be honest Mr. Putin has taken a far more aggressive approach to nationalizing the gas industry into one large monopoly and when compared to Venezuela, Hugo is small potatoes.



My arguement attempted to highlight the wedge between private media (which RCTV and CANTV after privatizing filled) and their audience. I proposed the idea that RCTV and CANTV might fly in similar circles. If such an arguement can be proven, we have CEO's which have no problem forcing military coups on the establishment. That's bad. That's very bad. Such a realization linked an american ambassador is tantamount to subversion Jobius. Isn't anyone curious to see if the meddling accusations are true?

In my view such a matter needs to be addressed because if we remember Chavez had to endure a coup which was aided by NED. It was created under the Reagan administration.

In the above link here here is what Ron Paul said in '03 about NED and 'meddling'.



There is a high probability an american NGO such as NED would be working with an american ambassador and since NED works through funding media outlets, the accusations in Ted's article Venezuela's Chavez says U.S. ambassador could be expelled if he keeps 'meddling' warrant exploration. How can anyone be surprised with Chavez's actions? They've been typecast since 2003.

But aren't you doing the same thing when you call the privatized CANTV in 1992 inefficient?


Link. A few months after the foreign investors came in (paying $1.8 billion for the privilege), Chavez leads a coup, and Venezuelans find it difficult to get a phone connection to talk to each other about it. Is it really fair to cite this as an example of the inefficiency of the privatized phone system?

I accept your criticism that it's not fair to compare 1991 to 2006 without taking into account technological improvements that had nothing to do with Venezuela's policies. Venezuela has over 12 million mobile phone users today; I don't think anybody had 12 million mobile users in 1991. But competition and markets must have had something to do with it. Look at Chavez's friends in Cuba. They've still got 1991-level service: less than a million phone lines total for a population of 11 million. Only about 100,000 are mobile phones, and they're mostly owned by foreigners.



If Chavez were proposing to buy back CANTV stock at the market rate, I don't think there would be many complaints. The GTE/Verizon consortium would still have lost a lot of money on the deal, but that's business. Nobody's guaranteed a profit. The problem is Chavez's attitude that the foreign investors are villains, and they should feel lucky if they get anything for their stake in the company.

I know, poor investors, boo hoo. They'll survive. Expropriation is always a risk in foreign ventures ("political risk"). It's nothing to clap about, though.



Sure, I'm interested. It's a question that deserves its own thread.

Edited to add: I don't believe CANTV is involved in media. I know the acronym makes it look like a TV company, but it actually stands for Compañía Anónima Nacional Teléfonos de Venezuela.

I had a good giggle seeing someone using The Devil's Excrement as a source to support Chavez's policies. I have been following that blog for sometime now, ever since one of our past Venezuelan members recommended it to me, and it is very, very critical of Chavez and his politics, I love it , it is a great resource.

I think Jobius makes a very good argument, there is not much we should do, as this is the risks investors assume when dealing in markets like Venezuela....and there has certainly been plenty or warnings.

I feel bad for the people of Venezuela that seem to have absolutely no access or ability to amass personal wealth. Chavez has a very tight hold on and exerts tremendous control over the movement of money for Venezuelans and CANTV was they only Venezuelan company listed on the NYSE. So it was the only safe place for people of Venezuela to keep their money out of the hands of their very greedy, gluttonous "Revolutionary"

I believe in the end Venezuela's international appearances (and debt) will be more of a concern, and that a deal for this nationalization will be fair, as fair as it can be in these situations to American companies. In the end it will be yet again the people of Venezuela, who thought to invest in CANTV shares, that will get cheated.

Bucket- I agree with your statement very much- but it is also a very cautionary tale about exploitation by corporate entities that lead to um, "populist" leaders like this- you have to ask- are the poor, the big majority in Venezuala, better off under Chavez or what was before Chavez? Everything I have seen is that the majority of the poeple of Venezuala have seen thier overall standard of living increase under Chavez.

If that is truly the case- and I could be wrong - then the poeple of Venezuala, no matter our ideological differences, are being well served by this guy, and if not, then they are being duped.

Let's assume that I am right (once again, have not seen much beyond media to say that the poor or better or worse ) So- what is to be gained by nationalizing the phone company- it is obvious as to why they nationalized the oil companies- and why do folks have animosity towards the private running of this ccompany?

If it is the fact that it is an expensive and tasty asset, and Chavez is looking for a cash cow- he had best be prepared to run it BETTER if he wants cow to keep milking!- for that, only time will tell.

I do not know enough about the telephone biz in Venezuala to know if it another corporate swindle through utilizing former corrupt leaders to sign on a deal that is NOT good for Venezuala, or if, in good faith, this company moved in.

In oil issues- corporationsfrequentl, could be the US, could be a Euro company, for sake of argument- corporations frequently use bribes to corrupt officials in that country to get a "deal" they couldn't pull off in say, the US. Then, when a new power comes in, and doesn't honor the obviously corrupt deal, then the new leader takes it back, and very may well sell it again.


IT is very hard to wade through American chest thumping and propaganda to know what the real truth is, but in the end, I just hope the Venezualan's end up a little better off for it all.

Just out of curiosity, what court are you refering to exactly? We're not members of the ICC and the ICJ wont hear a case by private enterprises. I'd assume this also applies to America taking a case on behalf of a private enterpise.

I posted a link to a story in which some arbitration lawyers speculated about attaching Citgo's assets if Venezuela were to seize U.S. oil companies' assets in Orinoco. I'm not sure how that would work in international arbitration, but a year or so back, Hunt Oil and Exxon/Mobil went to the International Chamber of Commerce ("the other ICC") for arbitration when Yemen cancelled a deal. More on the Venezuelan situation from MarketWatch:



I don't expect that anything will happen to Citgo, but the fact that they have assets are in the U.S. may deter Venezuela from really agressive expropriation.

This is the way socialists always start. Chavez has the blessing, since being elected, of rising oil prices. Any idiot can redistribute the funds to make the poor better off. They would have been better off in abny case. The question is what will happen as he “socializes” the entire economy. The history on the subject is clear. Socialism drives the best out and hurts everyone including the poor in the long run.

Chavez thinks of himself as the new Castro. IMO he intends to stay in power and has already started to take over and subvert the free media. He will be the “dictator” soon.

Rule by decree passed for Chavez
Venezuela's National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill granting the president the power to bypass congress and rule by decree for 18 months.
President Hugo Chavez says he wants "revolutionary laws" to enact sweeping political, economic and social changes.
He has said he wants to nationalise key sectors of the economy and scrap limits on the terms a president can serve

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6277379.stm

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/16569307.htm

How can you not like Hugo Chavez?
Chavez defends decree power as democratic This guy needs to be invited to the White House Correspondence Dinner.

The lies about the dangers of Communism, the War on Drugs, and the War on Terror cannot be used against Venezuela. Our government will try to undermine Pres. Chavez's efforts, but our government will not be afforded the usual propaganda tools that have been used to mislead the public in the past. Socialism/Communism will have a chance to operate with limited interference from the United States and we shall see the effects on the Venezuelan people. Right now, Chavez is extremely popular and looks impossible to beat in an election. When reform improves the living standard for poor Venezuelans, the American public will take notice and ask; if them, why not us?

I usually wouldn't comment on such statements, but this is just ridiculous. Chavez's latest 'reform' just gives further proof to the classical liberal viewpoint that the centralization of power will inevitably lead to tyranny. Chavez's explanation for his ability to rule by fiat is that it will help speed up necessary reforms. In other words, the democratic porcess is too slow and only through his infinite wisdom can he make the country better. Its authoritarian and an early sign of a complete totalitarian regime. Furthermore, calling anything Chavez is doing "reform" is almost a complete offense to the word itself. As if these nationalization measures are something untried and new. As if we didnt have decades of the Cold War where the communist economic system was proven to be completely ineffective. Central planning may work in a city of thousands or even tens of thousands, but in countries of millions it is just not possible to get the numbers right. His vast oil reserves are the only thing that could possibly save him from complete failure. Chavez is going to create a mess of his economy and unfortunately it will take a couple more years of squalor for the people of Venezuela to see it. Even more unfortunate is that by that time, Chavez's authoritarian grip on the country may be too hard to release.

Yes, I agree completely- this is how socialism starts - ignoring the poor in a country, corruption by the capitalist goverment leaders (Capitalism itself is not corrupt- it is some poeple that ruin it for everyone, just like many things in life, like oh, hitchhiking )

, exploitation of that corruption by business interests-

that is why I call it a "cautionary tale"- had the leaders prior to Chavez thought more of thier country instead of enriching themselves, perhaps Chavez would not be the "populist" he is today.

Chavez is a big fish in a small pond, and because of the evil we have in the whitehouse today, folks like Chavez are able to achieve great stature in the world by standing up to those poeple- much to our own shame.

I believe Chavez would not be a leader without corporate corruption and exploitation, which could be said for Castro as well.

At some point, he will probably run the country into the ground, and hopefully, some better, less corrupt, and more thoughtful leader will emerge- HOWEVER- if we, at this point, with our total lack of moral authority ( you know, torturing, invading other countries that have not harmed us etc ) attempt to DO anything in Venezuala to get some movement in commerce favorable to the US, or attempt "regime change" - it will most certainly backfire.

CruisingRam, I am going to have to disagree with you. The argument that capitalism is somehow exploitative in nature, an inevitable consequence of the quest for material wealth, is a dubious outcome. The fact of the matter is that any economic system can be exploitive, especially socialism or communism. What is significant in each individual country is the legal framework and institutions that are in place. In the United States we have a capitalistic system as well as a strong judiciary that is able to defend against exploitation and unjust practices. The protection of individual rights such as private property is essential for capitalism to thrive and remain free.

Chavez is in power because he has offered the same old propaganda that authoritarian leaders have used in the past to win the support of the people. Socialism sounds really nice in theory but in a reality of finite resources and human error, it just does not translate into practice with any effectiveness. Unfortunately for Venezuela its going to take a generation or two before they can truly realize this.

first off- an economic definition, a pure one, means that it is NOT socialism if it is exploitive- because the (untried, unproven) theory of communism and socialism doesnt' permit exploitation- we may call it this system, and mean it as a political whipping boy or something- but the economic definition no longer really fits- it just all ends up under the banne of "command economy".

Capitalism CAN thrive in a totalitarian state- see Singapore for example. But in that case- the poeple running the show seem very un-corrupt.


I am sorry, you misunderstood me- it is not CAPITALISM that is corrupt at all- it is SOME of the folks that head industry and call themselves "capitalists" when they are really just a kind of legal (for that country) theft that is the problem.

When you have "bad corporate citizens" and a system that allows them to write the rules in such a manner that does not allow really free and open commerce, that you get a situation like Venezuala- the corporations doing business there are unethical, have been for years, and eventually, the population rises up and takes on something worse (most often anyway).

Exxon is a classic example of a completely corrupt and amoral management, that, if they continue this unchecked, someone is going to whack them, and whack them hard- and the replacement may be even worse.

Lederuvdapac, I have to chuckle at your statement above in bold. What about our country is capitalistic? LOL, Our auto industry? Would auto industry even be able to sell automobiles without highways built by our tax dollars? No. How many states have the Big Three received subsidies from? Everywhere they have or had a factory. How was the Internet created? By US Defense spending. The Internet started out as a collection of college campus networks. Then the government enhanced the project by creating ARPA (Advanced Research Project Agency), which created ARPANet, the predecessor to the Internet. ARPA soon became DARPA (DoD ARPA) and now we have the Internet, which Cisco and Juniper all make a great deal of money off of. Then there is the Defense Industry, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and so on, all receive fat government contracts. Agriculture? Massive subsidies in that field. Southwestern Bell monopolized the communications field, then they were busted up by our "strong judicial system" and now AT&T has bought up all of the old Bell networks and they have monopolized the market. Not much competition with a monopoly. Microsoft, who is their competitor? Apple? There is no competition amongst electrical companies, only regulated monopolies. The Laws of Supply and Demand do not apply to subsidized corporations. The Laws of Supply and Demand only apply to suckers like the workers of this world.

Research and Development for our major corporations are paid for by our tax dollars, not ambitious entrepreneurs. Did Henry Ford build Route 66? No, your tax dollars did. Why? So Henry Ford could sell more cars.

Then for you to declare that Communism doesn't work is absurd. Have you bothered, during your studies at the Roosevelt Institution, to read NSC-68Hard to claim that their system doesn't work when you are constantly interfering with its operation. If communism doesn't work then why hasn't Castro been overthrown? If communism is such a failed system why are we fighting it everywhere it pops up? Seems kind of unnecessary doesn't it? If the system is going to collapse, why mess with it?

Because it won't collapse that's why, and the rich people of the world know this. That's why it is so important for the U.S. to contain Communism and indoctrinate it into American minds that Communism is "evil." Because "evil" means good for the masses, bad for the wealthy. Quite a piece of propaganda you have bitten into there.

"Bad corporate citizens"? What exactly makes a good corporate citizen? Who decides these rules and why is it that they are the ones to decide them? What you fail to see is that overregulatiton of business serves pretty much the same purpose as nationalized and state-controlled industry. Both are in direct conflict with the ideal of the free market. Now don't mistake me for saying all regulation is bad because that is far from the case and there are many instances where regulation is necessary. But "bad corporate citizens" are people who are subjectively held to a higher standard than everyone else.



Highways and the defense industries are hardly good examples of how are economic system is not capitalistic. There are certain public works that are necessary for government to undertake, public utilities and defense being just two of them. Furthermore, there is a common misconception that you have argued. Just because one product is chosen superior over another by the consumer, it doesnt make the dominance of the market a monopoly. Microsoft being chosen by computer manufacturers to have their OS system in their PCs and consumers choosing Microsoft is not a monopoly...its just defeating competition. The only way that a monopoly can exist is through (direct or indirect) sanction of government. Regulation can create private monopolies just as the creation of the ICC allowed the railroad industry to hold a monopoly of the transportation of goods market and keep the trucking industry down. And the big three automakers you mention have yes been protected and subsidized by the government for some time...but no more.



NSC-68 was intended to be a policy to stop the spread of communism. It had little to do with how communism functioned inside the USSR. The best example that could possibly be given as a microcosm of the situation was East-West Germany. The East was communist and a backwards nation while the West prospered. Same can go for South and North Korea. China has rejected communism in favor of more market oriented policies. The problem with communism is that the only way it can be actually enforced is through totalitarian means which is why there is a positive correlation between communist regimes and authoritarianism throughout history.

Communism basically allows for people to control all aspects of human reality. This is the truth of every implementation of communism to date.

To deny this is pure fallacy.

I don’t know if it has to do with human nature as in adrenaline(primitive versions word) or if it has to do with a common ancestor culturally. I will not go as far as to say capitalism is correct and flawless, it has its own set of issues, but capitalism comes farther to matching the wild kingdom of reality the communism does.

Communism to me is a close relative of theocracy. Its not this relationship is establishes by semantics, by as much as its matched by what my opinion is positive aspects statistically of the human experience currently, such as having a dress code for a certain business, to why you may not understand art from a foreign culture. Its a worldview of a specific group or even a single person that is allowed to rule over reality ultimately.

Cultures that use forms of socialism in Europe though tent to paint a separate picture, though none of them math exactly a healthy lifestyle though, any of our major forms of understanding and function that is.

Flexible interpretation. I like to go with what I call facts. Like this one about Microsoft.Final Ruling - United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation You're right, dominance in a market doesn't make a company a monopoly, but a conviction of being a monopoly does.

So you don't believe Highways assist the Auto Industry? Let me ask you; what is the purpose of the highways? TO DRIVE CARS ON! Would you buy a car if there wasn't anywhere to drive it? Probably not, that's where government steps in. Private sector builds the car, government builds a place to drive them. Just like the military industrial complex that Pres. Eisenhower warned about on his way out of office. Private sector builds the weapons and the government finds a reason to use them. Cold War spending hasn't decreased at all since the fall of the Soviet Union. Hmmm..the Big Red Scare is gone but we stay on alert? Fear! Powerful motivator, protect us Big Government, don't let THEM get us. Who is them? Whoever scares us the most; Eastern European Commies, South American Drug Czars, or Islamic Terrorists.
How about another industry tied to automotive? Insurance: Is there any legislation that exists to FORCE citizens to purchase insurance? I believe there is. Not really a free market if the government can throw you in jail for not being a consumer. How about home owner's insurance? Yep, there are laws about that too. Every house must be insured. And the great part about home owner's insurance is that when it's time to pay up, like for Hurricane Katrina, the Insurance company says, "No, sorry! We only assume the risk of things that aren't going to happen."
America! America! God shed his grace on thee!

But no more? Because they have all moved over seas.
about 300,000 employees and 108 plants worldwide,
Ford to cut up to 30,000 jobs - January 23, 2006Our manufacturing sector gets smaller by the day. Starbucks is hiring!


No, no, no, lederuvdapac, it doesn't work like that. If Communism is such a failed system, let it fail on its own, but that wasn't the case was it? We intervened in both Korea, with the Korean War of 1950-1953, and in Germany, through the Marshall Plan.Doesn't sound like "free market" to me. $13 billion in TAX PAYERS money? Sounds like one big fat social program. Oops! Did I say social? I meant "free market." How about the Truman Doctrine?More government hand outs to the Greeks and the Turks, is that the new definition of Free Market now? Sorry leder, what you read in books isn't the same as what happens in real life. That's the amazing effects of propaganda on your mind.

barnaby2341, surely you agree that not everyone that has been convicted of a crime has actually been guilty. Further, surely you agree that some convictions have been the result of political aims...no? Well that was the Microsoft case. They had a better product than everyone else and the competitors wanted to put an end to that. Microsoft was hardly a coercive monopoly. It wasnt price gouging and loosening production...it was increasing production and lowering prices. So not only did was it a product favored by consumers (which would imply that it was more in demand and more expensive than the competition), it was also less expensive as time went on.



Because there aren't, I don't know, economic, defense, and just general practical purposes for building highways. EVen if it was some sort of conspiracy involving Henry Ford...it was still a good idea.



Well if you're done with your rant, let's get back to what we're talking about.



They move overseas because that is the only way they can stay competitive with the other foreign automakers. Not only do we have the minimum wage but we have the second largest corporate taxes behind Japan. With incentives like this its no wonder the corporations move overseas. WHen politicians back home implement populist policies in an attempt to "get" the corporate fat cats, all they end up doing is hurting the american consumer and worker.


N.Korea was a military engagement, it didnt have anything to do with the effectiveness of communism in Nkorea. Same with Germany. Yes, we gave money to Germany in order to help rebuild its economies in line with the Keynesian wisdom of the time. But that had nothing to do with the utter failure that was East Germany. Or with the failure of the USSR. or with the rejection of communist economics by China. Coincidence that most of their economic reforms occurred after the fall of the USSR?


Ha, tell me about it...if we could only send that message to all those who read Marx, we would be in business...literally.

Leder- a bad corporate citizen would be Exxon- not following the laws of the land (Exxon Valdez) using thier wealth to influence laws favorable to them to the point it becomes almost silly, not paying the fines they have been told to pay, rather, using thier corporate muscle to keep the lawsuits going until the plaintiffs die out etc.

Business can be as good or bad as any individual can be, just like there are Ghandis and Dahmers, there are Exxons and, well, Microsoft I guess

P.s.- I happen to agree with your microsoft comments.

You are correct but that will not mean that the socialist dictatorship share to follow from this Castro imitator will be any better. In fact if Cuba is the example it will, in the long run, be far worse for the poor. The ONLY saving grace is the oil income. Without that this clown would be nowhere.




Come on please. This idiot is the result of corruption in the country and nothing we did or could do would have changed that. As I have said, without the oil money he would fail in 3 years or less. With the oil money he may last longer – but not much as the “bad” capitalist world runs from this nutcase and his socialist government. Its not “corporate corruption” it corruption and most of it in that country was in the OIL business.



I am still hopeful we can get a CITCO Boycott going. The people who work there can get jobs at Mobil or elsewhere and we can hurt this idiot. Anyone who thinks he will be much nicer to the next President, for either party, is IMO dead wrong.

Just a new update to this thread...

Venezuela's Chavez says government could nationalize supermarkets, food storage facilities.


Link to story