Now now. Then we'd have another mass shooting thread
Venezuela – socialist paradise on the verge of collapse
- Thread starter PedroMendez
- Start date
Venezuela on the brink: a journey through a country in crisis
The oil-rich South American nation should be prospering. Instead it stands on the edge of an economic and humanitarian abyss
by Jonathan Watts
The proud face of the revolutionary hero Simón Bolívar gazes from a stack of banknotes dumped in a grubby box on the floor of a supermarket that doubles as a foreign exchange bureau in a small border town in the Amazon.
No disrespect is intended: there is simply not enough space in the till for the thick wads of cash. Nor is it practical to treat the 100 bolivar bills with more care: they are worth barely more than the paper napkins stacked rather more attentively on the shelves.
This, however, is Venezuela’s highest denomination, a note that once represented Latin America’s most powerful petro-economy – but is now a near valueless symbol for one of the most dramatic reverses in a country’s fortunes.
With greater oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, Venezuela should be at least moderately prosperous. Instead, it has the world’s fastest contracting economy, the second highest murder rate, inflation heading towards 1,000% and shortages of food and medicine that have pushed the poorest members of its 30 million population to the edge of a humanitarian abyss.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-brink-a-journey-through-a-country-in-crisis
The oil-rich South American nation should be prospering. Instead it stands on the edge of an economic and humanitarian abyss
by Jonathan Watts
The proud face of the revolutionary hero Simón Bolívar gazes from a stack of banknotes dumped in a grubby box on the floor of a supermarket that doubles as a foreign exchange bureau in a small border town in the Amazon.
No disrespect is intended: there is simply not enough space in the till for the thick wads of cash. Nor is it practical to treat the 100 bolivar bills with more care: they are worth barely more than the paper napkins stacked rather more attentively on the shelves.
This, however, is Venezuela’s highest denomination, a note that once represented Latin America’s most powerful petro-economy – but is now a near valueless symbol for one of the most dramatic reverses in a country’s fortunes.
With greater oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, Venezuela should be at least moderately prosperous. Instead, it has the world’s fastest contracting economy, the second highest murder rate, inflation heading towards 1,000% and shortages of food and medicine that have pushed the poorest members of its 30 million population to the edge of a humanitarian abyss.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-brink-a-journey-through-a-country-in-crisis
In the last few days, the government has delayed the elections for state governorships until next year and now today suspended indefinitely the recall referendum signature gathering process.
That the government would do these things is no surprise whatsoever. But it is an important symbolic step because it means any charade on their part regarding commitment to democracy or the will of the people is decisively over. They decided that the people can't be allowed to determine their leaders. Its that simple.
The big questions are what the opposition does next and whether the Chavista bloc stays unified at the highest level.
That the government would do these things is no surprise whatsoever. But it is an important symbolic step because it means any charade on their part regarding commitment to democracy or the will of the people is decisively over. They decided that the people can't be allowed to determine their leaders. Its that simple.
The big questions are what the opposition does next and whether the Chavista bloc stays unified at the highest level.
Sure his party is/was involved in corruption but was the socialist party who took that country to the recession when they were in power from 2004 to 2011, similar with Portugal, the socialists destroyed the countries economy lost the elections and the next parties in power trying to get out of recession - bailouts, economy goes down (even more), people who had public jobs starting losing the jobs, economy stagnates, people not happy at all, economy start kicking in again but really slow, people not happy why Kim Kardashian has so much money only because she has a big ass and they vote on any party who says is not paying back any euro to those stinky Germans who work, pay taxes and mostly they are responsible.
Corruption is not the biggest problem in Venezuela. It is just the cherry on top of it.
Chavez introduced classic/modern socialist economic policies. Re-nationalization of industry, land reform(s), centralization, price controls, quotas, tariffs, government subsidies, regulations – in short: massive government intervention in the economy. That is exactly what socialists want to do and even if you’d do that without corruption, it would destroy any country.
Chavez was able to hide the destructive power of these policies behind the oil-revenue. Heck, a lot of left-leaning observers were cheering for this lunacy till ~2011. The decline in economic activity over the last 15 years in Venezuela is unprecedented in modern history outside war-zones (or other socialist regimes). The country needs to import everything, because it struggles to produce even the most basic goods like food or electricity. Even the oil industry itself is getting ruined by the lack of investment and the central (miss)management. Private non-oil exports collapsed, because the private economy collapsed.
The government made sure that enough citizens depend on its transfer-payments and the rest of the opposition was squashed with force. That is their only way to stay in power.
This is Hyperbole as if this would be true then the Scandinavian countries would not exist and and pay attention to this : http://statisticstimes.com/economy/european-countries-by-gdp-per-capita.php The Scandinavian countries are at the top of the chain amongst European countries measured by GDP. This means high productivity can flourish under a socialistic inspired relative free marked. The key is proper planning and having qualified people to implement them just like it is with liberal policies while also taking into consideration what stage an economy is in. The Scandinavian countries are a mix of liberalism and socialism with big states that can do state intervention in the private marked.
I would gladly go through the the areas you mention one by one but this would take a lot of time and i don´t think this forum is the correct forum to do this. Take for example the medicine marked in U.S.A and the price gouging issue that takes place there today as they lack proper price regulation to avoid massive exploitation which hurts the economy in quite a few ways.
Last edited:
You make the common mistake to equate a strong welfare state with socialism. I agree that almost all systems are mixed systems, so I could have been a bit more precise, but in short:
Scandinavian countries have extremely well defined property rights and a functional (non-corrupt) court system to protect these. That is the basis and fundament for a capitalist system. Venezuela under Chavez eroded property rights and this aspect alone would have ruined the economy. Additionally Scandinavian countries are well integrated into the world market and fancy free-trade. Economic + fiscal policy, state owned enterprises, non-discriminatory set of rules et. al all concur with fairly free markets (at least when we talk about most “normal” goods). There are few exceptions, but they are quite limited or sensible. The gist is, that Scandinavian countries are following capitalists norm a lot closer than most people realize. That’s why they score reasonably high in almost any “freedom of economics” rating.
The opposite is true for Venezuela. The most basic principles of free markets are violated in every way. Each aspect alone – property rights, fiscal policy, economic policy, trade, laws - would be enough to ruin a country. All combined are a disaster. I can’t think of any country post 1990 that followed similarly bad economic policies (excluding war-torn ones).
I’d also gladly explain to you, why the American health-care system is neither particularly capitalistic nor functional, but this would take a lot of time and I don’t think this forum is the correct place to do this.
Scandinavian countries have extremely well defined property rights and a functional (non-corrupt) court system to protect these. That is the basis and fundament for a capitalist system. Venezuela under Chavez eroded property rights and this aspect alone would have ruined the economy. Additionally Scandinavian countries are well integrated into the world market and fancy free-trade. Economic + fiscal policy, state owned enterprises, non-discriminatory set of rules et. al all concur with fairly free markets (at least when we talk about most “normal” goods). There are few exceptions, but they are quite limited or sensible. The gist is, that Scandinavian countries are following capitalists norm a lot closer than most people realize. That’s why they score reasonably high in almost any “freedom of economics” rating.
The opposite is true for Venezuela. The most basic principles of free markets are violated in every way. Each aspect alone – property rights, fiscal policy, economic policy, trade, laws - would be enough to ruin a country. All combined are a disaster. I can’t think of any country post 1990 that followed similarly bad economic policies (excluding war-torn ones).
I’d also gladly explain to you, why the American health-care system is neither particularly capitalistic nor functional, but this would take a lot of time and I don’t think this forum is the correct place to do this.
I was not talking about welfare in my text but the government ability to interfere in the private marked which is something completely different to welfare. A Big state is not just about how much welfare there is but certainly it is part of it. You need to differentiate between Communism and Socialism as they are 2 different governmental ideologies. When you talk about private right to own land and the right to have your own business, this is allowed in an socialistic system but not in a communistic one. You wrote about socialism in the text i quoted and that is why i responded to it the way i did. Also Capitalism is not a problem in a socialistic system but the way its regulated and how much that sets it apart from an typical liberal inspired one like the one in America. I want to ask you is it communism you want to criticise or socialism ? if its communism then what you wrote makes a lot more sense. Pedro, i just want you to be specific as it really matters in a discussion such as this. I don´t mean to belittle you in anyway.
,
Please do tell me why the American health-care system isn´t particular capitalistic as it is run for profit with huge insurance companies behind it and they certainly aren´t doing this for altruistic reasons, but for the profit involved.
,
Please do tell me why the American health-care system isn´t particular capitalistic as it is run for profit with huge insurance companies behind it and they certainly aren´t doing this for altruistic reasons, but for the profit involved.
I wasn’t really interested in a fundamental debate about different ideologies, but okay let’s play this game. No I am not talking about communism. Chavez/Madura are inspired by socialism & Marxism. Chavez himself popularized the phrase “socialism of the 21. Century” (2005 World Social Forum). This ideology is based on the work of Heinz Dietrich and Arno Peters and their interpretation/advancement of Marxism. I think I don’t need to introduce you to their work, because you’ll know all of that already. This ideology rejects central tenets of capitalism, but again, you’ll know all of that as well. Chavez reforms followed precisely these ideas of gradual change towards a socialist system. Hence it doesn’t come as a surprise that Dietrich was an outspoken fan of Chavez’s economic policy till 2011 (when he started to go full on authoritarian). This process isn’t finished, but it went far enough to destroy functioning free markets.
I am not interested in debating semantics. Scandinavia’s economic system is absolutely nothing like the system in Venezuela. Trying to equate both makes no sense, because there are fundamental differences between both. Scandinavia system is based predominantly on relatively free markets. Venezuela’s system is not. That’s why people in Venezuela are starving now.
I am not interested in debating semantics. Scandinavia’s economic system is absolutely nothing like the system in Venezuela. Trying to equate both makes no sense, because there are fundamental differences between both. Scandinavia system is based predominantly on relatively free markets. Venezuela’s system is not. That’s why people in Venezuela are starving now.
Well now i know what you mean by socialism as you expanded on it. I kinda agree that this form of socialism is deeply flawed and is a flawed economic system but i also think generally speaking the Chavez / Madura governments failed to invest properly and create an economy with more diversions and the overly reliance on oil, the fall of the price on crude oil have had an devastating impact on Venezuela. Its is basicly 2 very different economic systems competing next to each other which is hugely problematic in it self and the strongest one would normally win this competition ( amount of raw capital and production capability ) and capitalism is by far the strongest force of the two. I agree with you that a free ( relative ) marked is essential for a modern day economy. I say relative because an unregulated free marked will end up destroying it self out of pure self interest by the participants over time and that is why you need regulation to take out the destructive force of extreme self interest.
So in the end we agree pretty much! we just needed more details
So in the end we agree pretty much! we just needed more details
No, we probably don't agree, but that in itself is not a problem.
There are various different socialists school of thoughts and some are less terrible than others. What Chavez did was both theoretically and practically well grounded in the realm of classic socialist ideas. Even his authoritarianism and antidemocratic sentiment is one of competing historic and ideological lines of socialism and not just an abnormality.
His ideas of societal organisation differ massively from our "modern" western understanding of how to live together. Starting with philosophical questions of individualism and well-being to rather specific ideas like theories of value, property rights, rule of law, economic policy and trade. What happened in Venezuela was the unavoidable. Even if he wouldn't have been a corrupt and criminal crazy person, the whole country would have suffered. Just the time-frame would have been different. The problem of Venezuela isn't/wasn't an incoherent system or too much capitalism. It is that central planning of the whole economy (of a country) will fail 100 out of 100 times until we develop mind-reading super computer. Thats why free-markets are essential for human thriving.
The bigger issue is that these ideas continue to be relevant against all evidence that they are terrible. They are not only terrible for the people who hold them, but for everyone around them as well.
There are various different socialists school of thoughts and some are less terrible than others. What Chavez did was both theoretically and practically well grounded in the realm of classic socialist ideas. Even his authoritarianism and antidemocratic sentiment is one of competing historic and ideological lines of socialism and not just an abnormality.
His ideas of societal organisation differ massively from our "modern" western understanding of how to live together. Starting with philosophical questions of individualism and well-being to rather specific ideas like theories of value, property rights, rule of law, economic policy and trade. What happened in Venezuela was the unavoidable. Even if he wouldn't have been a corrupt and criminal crazy person, the whole country would have suffered. Just the time-frame would have been different. The problem of Venezuela isn't/wasn't an incoherent system or too much capitalism. It is that central planning of the whole economy (of a country) will fail 100 out of 100 times until we develop mind-reading super computer. Thats why free-markets are essential for human thriving.
The bigger issue is that these ideas continue to be relevant against all evidence that they are terrible. They are not only terrible for the people who hold them, but for everyone around them as well.
Depend on what you definition of ''thriving'' is(Half of the worlds wealth is in the hands of the 1%), plus this free market model seems to happily thriving us to our biggest problem - Global Warming.
I think you need to have a more critical view of the free markets because it is certainly a system that be used for serious exploitation in places like China where a lot of workings making products for the western world in pitiful conditions and poor wages to maximize the profits, this is causing major problems without better regulations on wages and working conditions. I need to ask do you also believe in trickle down mechanism when it comes to creating prosperity as the dominant factor ( supply ) ? i believe this played a part in the early/later stages of the industrialization period, but as we produce items and other goods more efficiently many of these jobs also goes away and this will cause an economic recession on the global scale if the markets were left to its own device. Corporations mainly care for profit ( that is why they exist ) short term and will act in a way that reduce the demand for goods by reducing their number of employees ( people can´t buy goods with no income ). Who is gonna replace those jobs ? This is were you need proper state intervention in the job creation section of society and this need progressive taxation to make it work ( a state cant create jobs without an income, but the free markets will fight this as it focus is purely on self interest and individualism ( and mostly go for lower taxation, hello republicans/conservatives ).
But not in the Chavez/Madura organisational way though as it just leads to other major problems on the structural and organizational level amongst others. Also as you see in the USA were the value of the minimum wage have been reduced greatly as it was left up to the free markets to deal with this ( it failed to follow inflation and stagnated ) and failed completely doing so, this means the overall human thriving went on an decline in USA over the last 40-50 years as the standard of living have declined for the working class and middle class Americans and this is the fault of the free market mechanism as it can be an threat to the overall prosperity if left to its own. Property rights is a good idea generally speaking in the western world but also problematic as it can lead to the most wealthy citizens or corporations buying all of the good land and entrench them selves long term in the top of society and this is gonna be hard to deal with going forward if it just follows the standard free market mechanism as ideally you want to spread out the owner ship so the wealth creation of this land is spread out more so more people can buy goods.
If the wealth stays with the few % it will stop the demand mechanism from working correctly, which i favour in a society like the west as the production capability increases in both efficiency but also in numbers. If you look at USA then you can see how rule of law and economic policies are greatly affected by the American idea of free markets as the wealthy few have an enormous impact on the policy making to the advantage of the individual rather than the collective Americans, generally speaking the top % have been hoarding the wealth creation for many years now, this is a danger to the free market it self long term as it is kinda devouring it self this way as it damages the overall well being with an individual focused drive. This : https://www.google.dk/search?q=ceo+pay+vs+average+worker+over+time&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&imgil=hNWYmTFQ16f7uM%3A%3BSduJJRXDJ5LzrM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmoneymamba.com%252Fwhy-ceo-pay-grows-faster-than-worker-pay%252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=hNWYmTFQ16f7uM%3A%2CSduJJRXDJ5LzrM%2C_&usg=__3gJWoqTmEqFiXFB6BHNoUPOr5W0=&biw=1920&bih=953&ved=0ahUKEwjXsd-ji-7PAhVHApoKHTjXALYQyjcIMg&ei=9C8LWNfnC8eE6AS4roOwCw#imgrc=3uyPVMAdClya-M: shows how the CEO wages have increased vs the stagnation of the standard worker wage ( inflation have caused an great devaluation of this wage generally speaking ).
Also look at this : http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ these statistic clearly show the traditional American idea of the free marked can in fact hurt the overall human thriving. The extreme measures of the Chavez/Madura idea of socialism certainly is no answer to this though i agree with this.
But not in the Chavez/Madura organisational way though as it just leads to other major problems on the structural and organizational level amongst others. Also as you see in the USA were the value of the minimum wage have been reduced greatly as it was left up to the free markets to deal with this ( it failed to follow inflation and stagnated ) and failed completely doing so, this means the overall human thriving went on an decline in USA over the last 40-50 years as the standard of living have declined for the working class and middle class Americans and this is the fault of the free market mechanism as it can be an threat to the overall prosperity if left to its own. Property rights is a good idea generally speaking in the western world but also problematic as it can lead to the most wealthy citizens or corporations buying all of the good land and entrench them selves long term in the top of society and this is gonna be hard to deal with going forward if it just follows the standard free market mechanism as ideally you want to spread out the owner ship so the wealth creation of this land is spread out more so more people can buy goods.
If the wealth stays with the few % it will stop the demand mechanism from working correctly, which i favour in a society like the west as the production capability increases in both efficiency but also in numbers. If you look at USA then you can see how rule of law and economic policies are greatly affected by the American idea of free markets as the wealthy few have an enormous impact on the policy making to the advantage of the individual rather than the collective Americans, generally speaking the top % have been hoarding the wealth creation for many years now, this is a danger to the free market it self long term as it is kinda devouring it self this way as it damages the overall well being with an individual focused drive. This : https://www.google.dk/search?q=ceo+pay+vs+average+worker+over+time&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&imgil=hNWYmTFQ16f7uM%3A%3BSduJJRXDJ5LzrM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fmoneymamba.com%252Fwhy-ceo-pay-grows-faster-than-worker-pay%252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=hNWYmTFQ16f7uM%3A%2CSduJJRXDJ5LzrM%2C_&usg=__3gJWoqTmEqFiXFB6BHNoUPOr5W0=&biw=1920&bih=953&ved=0ahUKEwjXsd-ji-7PAhVHApoKHTjXALYQyjcIMg&ei=9C8LWNfnC8eE6AS4roOwCw#imgrc=3uyPVMAdClya-M: shows how the CEO wages have increased vs the stagnation of the standard worker wage ( inflation have caused an great devaluation of this wage generally speaking ).
Also look at this : http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/ these statistic clearly show the traditional American idea of the free marked can in fact hurt the overall human thriving. The extreme measures of the Chavez/Madura idea of socialism certainly is no answer to this though i agree with this.
Last edited:
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
At this point, I think a civil war or a coup is inevitable.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Here a decent article about the economic reality in the country: https://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuela-is-starving-1493995317
The rest is really just a rant.
-------------------------------
Infamous video, that is shared a lot:
Who would have thought that I’d agree with Nick Cohen (article is already over a year old)
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ictatorship-hugo-chavez-venezuela-sex-tourism
I particularly like these parts:
Sadly not just deluded Hollywood celebrities cheered for this madeness. Maybe all those people who shook hands with Chevez&Maduro (and enjoyed luxurious vacations while visiting) could speak out. Now even Gustavo Dudamel seems to find his “consciousness” after profiting decades from the regime and acting as cheerleader for it on the international stage.
The rest is really just a rant.
-------------------------------
Infamous video, that is shared a lot:
+Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Maduro’s kids and the kids of Hugo Carvajal (nowadays a drug kingpin; former military intelligence chief) are skydiving with red-bull athletes in army helicopters, while the population is starving.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Who would have thought that I’d agree with Nick Cohen (article is already over a year old)
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ictatorship-hugo-chavez-venezuela-sex-tourism
I particularly like these parts:
Sadly not just deluded Hollywood celebrities cheered for this madeness. Maybe all those people who shook hands with Chevez&Maduro (and enjoyed luxurious vacations while visiting) could speak out. Now even Gustavo Dudamel seems to find his “consciousness” after profiting decades from the regime and acting as cheerleader for it on the international stage.
Was thinking about it this morning. Where have their Hollywood fan club and other celebrities gone?
Name and shame!
Certainly not to Venezuela. That’s for sure. Almost all of them went into hiding. The only one that is still speaking out is Chomsky. Not that he is willing to fully acknowledge reality, but at least he is not just running away from his own idiocy.
It would be rather embarrassing to get reminded, that many were still quite favorable even in 13/14/15. Lukas Haas and Jamie Foxx visited their amigo in late 2016 to support him. You couldn’t make this shit up, but the list is long. Sean Penn. Oliver Stone (he even made a film…). Michael Moore. Danny Glover. You could probably name hundreds of politicians, celebrities and activists who supported the regime despite its apparent authoritarian nature and its economic incompetence.
It is important to keep everything in perspective. These people were obviously in no way vital for the establishment or the survival of the regime. They are not to blame for what happened despite acting as cheerleaders abroad. Sadly Latin Americans are more than capable of fecking up their country themselves. Yet as a westerner, who loves the Americas, I just despise these dumbfecks. These people are completely out of touch with reality at home and abroad. Yet they are constantly preaching to demonstrate how great they are. It is all talk no walk.
https://www.hrf.org/single-post/201...dent-Maduro-and-of-Drug-Kingpin-Hugo-Carvajal
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
so they use military tribunals for people who got arrested in one of the cities (Carabobo)
Why not? Sure you can only grow a single sector or industry to a certain point but that's what diversification is right? I'm not an economics major but I would have thought you spread your investments, power, healthcare research, technology, education, infrastructure... A little growth here and there is still growth. I guess that's the general idea.
It seems like the Venezuelan government put all their eggs in one basket. I thought when Chavez got power he would use the money to lift the poor people out of poverty. I watched a documentary on his land reforms, giving farmland to people from slums is very noble but they know feck all about farming. Totally misguided.
I feel sorry for the Venezuelans, most of us remember what happened in Argentina in the late 90s was it? Crazy, they'll end up having to privatise everything in the end.
@PedroMendez
After your post I saw the Chomsky link where he blamed them for not moving beyond oil. Interestingly a Venezuelan diplomat in India said the economy was even less diversified prior to Chavez - he said it was oil+1 farm product (I've forgotten which). Any ideas about this?
Of course, he also claimed there was a western conspiracy to stop diversifying with the failed coup and sanctions.
After your post I saw the Chomsky link where he blamed them for not moving beyond oil. Interestingly a Venezuelan diplomat in India said the economy was even less diversified prior to Chavez - he said it was oil+1 farm product (I've forgotten which). Any ideas about this?
Of course, he also claimed there was a western conspiracy to stop diversifying with the failed coup and sanctions.
It's the typical market economy v centrally planned debate, imo. Whatever diversification they had as a result of foreign or domestic but privately owned businesses they essentially choked out by making it impossible to healthily do business. And they somehow the government will actually create and direct a diversified economy...? Someone shoot me a memo when that goes right somewhere, sometime.
It's not so much of a debate... hasn't been one since the 90s. Obviously the question is, how much of a role should the government have? In Venezuela, they should clearly feck off some.
In Latin America we're still debating the issues of the 1960s
It is mostly nonsense. The pre-chavez era was hardly anything to praise. After becoming one of the richest countries after WWII, the country went through a series of crisis, crashes and problems. Oil wealth had been repeatedly wasted (the state owned party of the industry - ~40% - long before chavez took office); inflation was a frequent problem; growth was ambiguous at best. They were able to bumble along due to oil. It was a rent-seeking petro economy. It suffered from the “dutch disease” for decades before Chevez took power. I think there is some crazy statistic that the per capita GDP in ~1995 was lower than in 1960 (there are only about 10 countries in the world, where this is true). Shortly before Chavez took office his predecessor actually enacted a couple of good reforms. All these problems aside Venezuela had some functioning industry and about-ish 30% of its exports were non-oil products. (now its more like 1%). FDI in anything but oil collapsed. The number of companies declined.
Btw: All this talk about sanctions (from the USA) and anti-imperialism (from Chevez) aside, the trading relationship between both countries didn’t change that much. At least not until very recently, but that’s just because they are running out of foreign currency.
How much aid is Russia sending to them? I remember a few years back there was a big deal made in the press and by Venezuela and Russia when the Russians flew some of their long range bombers to Venezuela as a sign of solidarity against US imperialism. There were talks of bases or some kind of semi-permanent presence of Russian air and naval assets in Venezuela. Just wondering if the budding alliance between the two nations was still in place or not?
you'll get your favorite president back in 2018 :> Did you read the news?In Latin America we're still debating the issues of the 1960s
I gotta admit I totally jumped the gun last year. I bought a bottle of champagne in March expecting his arrest to come any day... long story short, it's still in my fridge. My wife suggested we just drink it if he gets elected President next year (she's not as emotionally attached to him as I am). I'm more likely to break it.
Ah! As you were then.In Latin America we're still debating the issues of the 1960s
I have no idea about details, but my impression was that Russia cooperated with them (symbols aside), when it benefited Russian companies. Venezuela was a useful market for military goods and for their energy companies. Russia was a life-line to keep their eroding oil sector alive. When Russian companies are still giving loans to their Venezuelan partners, they usually make sure to get hard collateral to minimize the risk. So I don’t expect that Russia is helping them in any meaningful way; not that anyone could actually help them.
Hmmm, can't even remember making that comment so I'm going to have to have a guess what I was on about.
Is there not a contradiction between growth at all costs and environmental sustainability?
I may have meant that, we will have to ask 2016 me.
Haha I didn't realise that it was that old a comment. feckers bring up old threads! Nothing to see here. Move on
Edit: for anyone not following the news. Lula got a long prison sentence. It will be appealed but it is still pretty serious and wild. Between 2000-2010 most people started to think that brasilian democracy was finally stable. All the chaos at the moment is really bad. Not sure how this is going to end. I guess the "good" thing is that Brazilians are just too tired of all this shit to really kick up fuss.
Last edited:
Look forward to similar if Corbyn gets in