Well written Clavos. We will see how it all plays out,and in the end if the entirety of the population winds up better off, or worse.

So far, it appears some are taking a hurting (those upper income folks, and participants in the Venezuelan stock market), and some better (the natives who have received better education and health care under this regime).

Does Chavez go from a hybrid socialism to full out communism? If so, failure is almost assured.

But if he can find a decent balance, and refrain from "president for life", some real good can come out of it.

Only time will tell, but the natural resources of the country gives him definite advantages over Fidel's fiasco when it comes to improving life for the poorest citizens.

Still and all, I've not much confidence in the long term, and can only hope that all runs it's course without too much damage done to that country.

Thanks, D'oh.

I'm impressed by your analysis; I think the only point I would argue is how much good he has actually done for the poor, VS how much of what we've heard is his PR machine product.

I do know there are half-finished projects on which work was halted when the decline in oil prices began.

The main thing that worries me about him is that, with each succeeding speech he's turning more leftward. He actually did say "I am a Communist" at the swearing-in of his cabinet on Monday.

The good I know about concerns teaching folks to read, with the cynical motive that then they would be eligible to vote, that being the law there.

To me, that's a good thing, and goes a long way as long as folks don't start getting killed by secret police.

As I said, time will tell, there remains the potential for some good, and a distinct possibility of sever fuck ups.

But in the end, the folks there are getting what they voted for, and that's how democracy works. As long as the ballots are clean and fair, it ain't nobody's business but their own.

I hope that the US government doesn't contribute to the severe fuck up as it has such a habit of doing in latin America

So say we all, troll.

D'oh,

Again, one small quibble. You say,

it ain't nobody's business but their own.

To which, in principle I agree completely.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chávez is not content with bringing his "Bolivarian Revolution" just to Venezuela... Besides Nicaragua, he's also trying to export his ideas to Bolivia and Ecuador.

Good point, Clavos. Let me riff on it a bit.

As long as it's the bully pulpit and diplomacy, it is still well within the rights of a democratically elected leader to speak his mind. The very clear line would be fermenting revolt by supplying lawyers, guns and money to insurgents in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate government. Which I don't think he has tried to do yet.

It's stepping over that line that would de-legitimize him and his regime, otherwise it remains well within acceptable boundaries to speak out and talk to his neighbors.

At least he hasn't sent troops in to overthrow a government and publicly stated his goal of spreading his political philosophy by use of force, unlike some other national leader we know.

Big difference between diplomacy (talking) and the use of troops (invasions).

I still think the title should read "I am a Communist Dictator" - truth in advertising.

Dave

But the people love him and they STILL are doing much better economically then they ever have. Sad isn't it. Democracy at work.

Yet we vote for Bush, loose international respect, contribute to the death of several hundreds of thousands foriegners and feel content. Because we are good and we are right. Oh dictatorship is good when we want to dictate to soverign nations.

D'oh #7:

Sorry for the long response time; had to take my wife to her PT.

I see where you're going in #7, and am inclined to agree.

What is worrisome is his recent importation of 100,000 Kalashnikovs, and his inking a deal with Putin to build a factory to make them in Venezuela.

The 100,00: OK.

But, the factory?

He just doesn't have a need for that many ARs.

Chavez has support of over 2/3's of the population (obviously insignificant to you people) and was recently elected by a 23% margin. As you all know, and chose to ignore, the previous governments didn't pay attention to the poor even though they were the vast majority of the population. I'm not going to respond to your "analysis", as the above poster put it, because there wasn't any analysis. You said some platitudes and quoted the people with the ideology of previous governments. The clause that he wants to put in the constitution that would allow him to be elected indefinitely is very democratic. His plan, which again you didn't mention, is to recall himself and put the idea up for national referendum. So, if passed, you couldn't blame him for it becoming law, it would be the Venezuelan people who would support it. Whether you people like their decision is irrelevant and any other government to intervening for any reason would be anti-democratic.

About Cuba: they certainly are a tightly controlled country, Castro's human rights record is horrible, in PART because of his orthodox Marxist ideology. However, can you name a country on earth who has been the subject of more covert attacks than Cuba has at the hands of the US? What would the US do, especially with a nut job like Bush in power, if, say, China has been doing the same to us for decades? Do you think we would have fewer freedoms as a result? We all know the answer.

Also, are they any worse than our biggest ally in the region, Columbia? Columbia receives the most aid in Latin America from the US, is fascistly right wing and has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere (with more union leaders killed there last year than the rest of the world combined). Cuba, for all its faults, has the best healthcare and educational systems in Latin America, is on the path to being fully self sufficient in agriculture (something other Latin American countries can only dream about), based on organic produce, and has accomplished this despite the decades long US blockade and not a single penny from the IMF or World Bank (the only country in Latin America to do so). Of course, not taking funds from those parasitic institutions might be the reason they've done better than other countries in the region.

Just a couple questions to you all: Venezuela is the most participatory government in Latin America (if you want proof I will provide links). Can any of you point out other countries that are right wing or "pro-free market" who can say the same? If so, which ones? Also, you said that Cuba is the poorest country in the region. Name the countries better off in Latin America and the Caribbean and provide proof to back up your argument. Please don't use per capita income as your argument by the way. It says absolutely nothing about people at the micro level. Please provide proof. I will if you take me up on the question.

It's one thing to disagree ideologically. It's another to pretend that what is happening in Venezuela is a result of one man, as opposed to the general population.

Sorry to interrupt though, back to your emotionally pleasing platitudes and "analysis".

Chavez has support of over 2/3's of the population (obviously insignificant to you people) and was recently elected by a 23% margin.

That would be the 2/3 to whom he has promised the sun, the moon and the stars. OF COURSE they're voting for him. So far, he's talked a good talk, but hasn't delivered much beyond rhetoric; he still has one of the largest poor classes (as a percentage of the total population) in the region. We'll see how long they continue to support him if he doesn't start delivering soon.

Also, are they any worse than our biggest ally in the region, Columbia? Columbia receives the most aid in Latin America from the US, is fascistly right wing and has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere

If you're going to write about the region, it would be nice if you learned the names of the countries.

COLOMBIA has an incredibly grave problem with the drug cartels. Being a judge in Colombia is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. They ARE making progress against the narcotraficantes, and the US aid you sneer at is a major reason they're able to do so.

Colombia is literally under siege from neighboring countries, especially including Venezuela and Ecuador. The paramilitary rebels and drug traffickers are given free passage over the borders (Colombia's are twice as long as the US/Mexico border) and sanctuary by these countries, as well.

Colombia's human rights record is not good in large part because of the intensity of the activity of both the traffickers and the rebel groups. That doesn't excuse the government's actions, but it does explain them.

(Cuba) has accomplished this despite the decades long US blockade and not a single penny from the IMF or World Bank

But with billions from Russia.

The blockade actually helps Fidel:

It gives him a boogeyman on whom to blame his own failings. It also enables him to keep the people totally dependent on the paltry largesse from the government, thus helping him to maintain his control of them.

Also, you said that Cuba is the poorest country in the region. Name the countries better off in Latin America and the Caribbean

You're kidding. For decades, Cuba lived off the dole from Russia; now Chávez is supporting them. He's already sent them $2 billion.

Practically all of them. You didn't want per capita income, so here's the list, based on GDP (Purchasing Power Parity), according to the CIA Fact Book:

COUNTRY AND WORLD RANK

Brasil 12
Mexico 15
Argentina 23
Colombia 30
Chile 46
Peru 50
Venezuela 53
Dominican Republic 72
Ecuador 74
Guatemala 75
Costa Rica 82
Cuba 89

Rankings are estimated from 2005.

Better still Clav would be to rank them in order of their standard of living ... GDP per capita, far more telling.

Then they would all be way down the list. The truth is, Latin America is far from a success story, and in reality, with the kind of natural resources it has collectively, should be a power house.

Here you go, Stan. There are some surprises here.

FYI, Dilbert's original challenge was to list all LatAm and Caribbean countries richer than Cuba.

Again from the CIA World Fact Book:

GDP PER CAPITA WORLD RANK

COUNTRY RANK

Cayman Islands 5
USA 7 (For reference)
British Virgin islands 11
Australia 19 (for Stan)
Aruba 48
The Bahamas 52
Barbados 60
Trinidad & Tobago 61
Netherlands Antilles 64
US Virgin Islands 67
Martinique 68
Argentina 70
Chile 80
Costa Rica 83
Mexico 87
Uruguay 88
Brasil 96
Colombia 102
Dominican Republic 108
Panama 109
Belize 117
Suriname 119
Venezuela 120
Peru 124
Saint Lucia 134
El Salvador 135
Guatemala 138
Paraguay 139
Guyana 140
Jamaica 141
Ecuador 144
Grenada 147
Dominica 152
St, Vincent and the Grenadines 155
Cuba 156

Yes, that changes the picture somewhat. I do think it's a tragedy that countries such as Argentina, once upon a time compared to Australia as a wealthy primary producer and full of hope and potential, have allowed the distractions of insane political manoeuvreings to ruin their economies.

Moonraven can say what she likes about our great and wonderful institutions, but for all our faults, they do guarantee genuine democracy - as far as one can realistically have that in what have by neccessity become two-party systems - and nail down the kinds of personal rights and freedoms others can only dream of.

The reason: they were all designed from the outset to guarantee personal freedoms (going back to the Magna Carta, and earlier) and have evolved with stability a key, along with a collective realisation that everything comes second to the democratic process and the rights that affords.

I don't see any of that stuff being put in place in Venezuela, or in too many other parts of Latin America.

dilbert

Who are you? You actually have a brain. I was contiplating leaving BC just today because I thought that I was wading in a wasteland and became afraid that I would end up content with the lack of contiplation that is rampent on these threads.

THANK YOU.

Yes, that changes the picture somewhat. I do think it's a tragedy that countries such as Argentina, once upon a time compared to Australia as a wealthy primary producer and full of hope and potential, have allowed the distractions of insane political manoeuvreings to ruin their economies.

Yes, Argentina is truly a disappointment. I first visited it in about 1971; it already had gone downhill from its heyday then, but it's worse now.

Did you know there was a Harrod's in Buenos Aires? I was told it was the only one outside of the UK when it opened in 1913. But, in the 40s, it split away from UK Harrod's and is now closed altogether.

I have several clients in Argentina. Interestingly, they all keep their boats here in Florida. One tells me that he's afraid to keep the boat in BA. Because of the kidnapping problem, it would make him a target.

Doesn't surprise me about the Harrod's ... many Argentinians are of British descent (although not many would go now, I think).

Rugby is still played in Argentina (and nicely too), and there are cricket clubs still. You will find plenty of Juan Smiths, I suspect.

But, yeah, I have a mate who plays international rugby and he says while BA is beautiful (and one of the safer cities of South America), he never feels totally safe when he goes there.

Great horses though!

Thanks Dilbert for adding some truth to this blog.

Calling Chavez a dictator after all of his landslide election victories shows blindness by the poster of that idiotic claim. Regarding communism, to some of us, Capitalist is as dirty of a word as Communist is to others. So much for the impact of the word usage. I'm amazed that no one takes issue with the 300 years of rule by the elite who created all of that poverty and disenfrancisment that plagues Venezuela. When a socialist democratically elected president hasn't solved all of his nations problems in a few years, oh my the outrage! It's called hypocracy folks.

Ted. Let me ask you three questions:

Has Chavez shut down the opposition press and arrested journalists?
Has Chavez seized private property without due process of law?
Does Chavez plan to remain in power indefinitely?

If the answer to all three of these is 'yes' - and it is unless you're a spinning shill - then he's a dictator.

Dave

It's all true Ted ... he's really just another South American populist dictator in the Peron mould pretending to be a benevolent socialist leader.

In my view he's not benevolent, he's not really a socialist (and if he were, I would have no problem with it), and he's not a true leader - as he's leading his bloody country down the garden path for his own ends.

As I said in my post, because that's always the right's answer & I knew you'd use it, per capita income says nothing, by itself, about the health of the vast majority of the people in a country. Let's say I have 1 dollar to my name. A person worth a million walks into the room. Our per capita income is now 500,000.50. By your logic, we're both rich, although we're obviously not. Can I, with my 1 dollar, afford healthcare? Can I afford to send my kids to school? Save for retirement? No. If there are no social programs, I can't afford to eat while the millionaire can eat caviar, in a five star hotel, while sniffing coke, good coke, off a stripper's ass...and that's just to get the night started. Does that millionaire work hard for that money? Maybe, but not usually. In all likelihood, he was born rich, hires a broker who increases his wealth by clicking a mouse on his computer. These are the investors that run everything, and democracy shouldn't make their lives hard.

Next to your per capita income numbers, put the percentage of the population that lives in poverty, and extreme poverty, in each country. Give percentages on access to healthcare and education. Then give the amount of natural resources in those countries, Brazil is a great example. The amount of under-development is staggering. If you were objective and not rigid ideologically, you'd see that.

You want to mention the help Cuba got from the USSR, and now Chavez? Again, how much in military aid alone does the US give Columbia? How many billions in loans have these countries received as a result of implementing "austere" programs by financial institutions like the IMF? Do they have healthcare, educational and agricultural systems like Cuba, available to more than a minority of the population? Do the people in those countries benefit even a fraction as much as international investors from resources in these countries? Come on.

At least Chavez is attempting something that might. Cuba has provided both a good & bad example for countries at the developmental stage that Venezuela is in. What I'm talking about is the good.

Dave:

Provide links as to who has been put in jail and which stations have been shut down. Do they have ties to groups and individuals, many in the US, who have called for and supported un-democratic removal of Chavez in the past? If China was funding stations to call for the overthrow of Bush and hired reporters to do the same, what would Bush do? Would you blame him? What is the difference here? I don't blindly follow anyone. If Chavez was who you say was, I'd change my mind. His isn't, the picture you paint doesn't have logic or fact to back it up.

The property he seized was not being used and was owned by a very small fraction of the country. Countries do not develop without land reform. To do so would be unprecedented. I also don't think a situation where 1% of a population owns 80% of the wealth is just. There's no justification differences in wealth like that.

As i said above, what he plans on doing is recalling himself, putting himself on the ballot under the stipulation that he can elected as many times as the Venezuelan people chose but can be voted out each election cycle. What is your problem with this? Articulate yourself.

Some interesting Adam Smith quotes:

"It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged."

"the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore . . . is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public . . . to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers . . . but to narrow the competition . . . can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must . . . have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen."

The masters "never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject..."

"Masters too sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people."

"The policy of Europe, by obstructing the free circulation of labor and stock both from employment to employment, and from place to place, occasions in some cases a very inconvenient inequality . . ."

Ted

"Capitalist is as dirty of a word as Communist is to others. So much for the impact of the word"

Thank you Ted!!

Wow, two thinkers on one thread. Beautiful!!

Dilbert,

I gave you ample, documented proof that practically every country in Latin America and most of those in the Caribbean are wealthier than Cuba, which was my original assertion. You said in your first post you could provide proof to the contrary; now's the time.

All of your statements so far have been nothing more than typical socialist/communist propaganda. If you want us to believe anything you say, you'll have to provide credible links from neutral, non/socialist sources UNRELATED to Chavez or Castro, which prove the following:

The property he seized was not being used and was owned by a very small fraction of the country. Countries do not develop without land reform. To do so would be unprecedented. I also don't think a situation where 1% of a population owns 80% of the wealth is just.

As i said above, what he plans on doing is recalling himself, putting himself on the ballot under the stipulation that he can elected as many times as the Venezuelan people chose but can be voted out each election cycle.

can you name a country on earth who has been the subject of more covert attacks than Cuba has at the hands of the US?

Cuba, for all its faults, has the best healthcare and educational systems in Latin America, is on the path to being fully self sufficient in agriculture

Venezuela is the most participatory government in Latin America (if you want proof I will provide links) We welcome them.

I could cut-and-paste all day long from Adam Smith as well. Proves nothing.

Show us some verifiable unbiased facts.

Often times a discovery or an insight will revolutionize a person's world view. With that experience comes excitement and a commitment to the ideology that develops from the new knowledge. The problem arises when one ceases to acknowledge other ideas; when their thinking is stunted and they define themselves by that philosophy. What happens is that it becomes harder for them to evolve and mature intellectually, their thought processes are diminutive. However because of their confidence, they never realize just how retarded their scholarly development is. What often contributes to that is if there is a "club" of those who adhere to the same principles. One becomes "in" and feels even more significant because of the stance that they have taken.

That individual's responses to phenomenon, is whatever the philosophy allows and not what that person sees as the fitting solution.

Partisanship has produced multitudes of these drones. Some more sophisticated than others. However the result is a diminished national debate. The scope of possibility for the entire nation is lessoned, no real vision, no real innovation just steadfastness and sameness. A generation later, no one even knows that it is permissible to THINK independently. .....then, Bush happens twice.

So Ted, thank you for not stating the predictable and illuminating that communism is not inherently bad just as capitalism is not inherently good.

communism is not inherently bad

Actually, as originally conceived by Karl Marx it is quite good; utopian, even.

Unfortunately, in the real world, with real people implementing it, it has repeatedly failed spectacularly:

The Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba...

Sorry, you seem intelligent, are you just turning your brain off? Do you not, logically, realize why per-capita income numbers don't tell much of anything? That is basically your whole argument. I gave an example above as to why, has to do with the distribution of income, of wealth. None the less, I will provide the final nail in the coffin for your argu...whatever it is. You haven't directly responded to anything I've said. Whatever propaganda you say I'm passing off you obviously don't have an answer for. Here's an article on Cuba's agricultural system. This won't be reflected in per capita numbers of course.

"Cuba's Agricultural Revolution an Example to the World":

"Laura Enriquez, a sociologist at the University of California-Berkeley, who has written extensively on the subject of Latin American agriculture, said: "What happened in Cuba was remarkable. It was remarkable that they decided to prioritize food production. Other countries in the region took the neo-liberal option and exported 'what they were good at' and imported food. The Cubans went for food security and part of that was prioritizing small farmers."

"Cuba is filled with more than 7,000 urban allotments, or organoponicos, which fill perhaps as many as 81,000 acres. They have been established on tiny plots of land in the center of tower-block estates or between the crumbling colonial homes that fill Havana. One afternoon I visited a small garden of tomatoes and spinach that had been dug just a few hundred yards from the Plaza de la Revolution, a vast concrete square where Castro and his senior regime members annually oversee Cuba's May Day parade. More than 200 gardens in Havana supply its citizens with more than 90 percent of their fruit and vegetables."

Remarkably, this organic revolution has worked. Annual calorie intake now stands at about 2,600 a day, while UNFAO estimates that the percentage of the population considered undernourished fell from 8 percent in 1990-92 to about 3 percent in 2000-02. Cuba's infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S., while at 77 years, life expectancy is the same.

Experts, such as Professor Pretty, believe Cuba may be one of the only countries in the world to have adopted wholesale a self-sustaining system of agriculture. "They had no choice," he said. "Their only choice was to look inwards, to the resources they had and say: 'Can we make more of these resources?' "

Champions of organic, non-intensive agriculture might cite Cuba as an example that other countries could adopt rather than following the large-scale, industrial agriculture system.

Here's another on Cuban agriculture, "Cuba:
A Successful Case Study of Sustainable Agriculture".

World Health Report, Cuba ranked 39th, fifth in Latin America, two spots behind US, with an embargo still in effect:


Cuba's healthcare system.

"In 2000, Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan stated that "Cuba should be the envy of many other nations" adding that achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. "Cuba demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities - health, education, and literacy." [18] The Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-governmental organization that evaluated Cuba's health caresystem in 2000-1 described Cuba as "a shining example of the power of public health to transform the health of an entire country by acommitment to prevention and by careful management of its medical resources" [19] President of the World Bank James Wolfensohn also praised Cuba's healthcare system in 2001, saying that "Cuba has done a great job on education and health," at the annual meeting of the Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Wayne Smith, former head of the US Interests Section in Havana identified "the incredible dedication" of Cubans to healthcare, adding that "Doctors in Cuba can make more driving cabs and working in hotels, but they don't. They're just very dedicated".[20]"

I can include links on the educational system if you'd like, but I think you get the point.

Despite the blockade and its effects on healthcare, described here:

"Today, more than a thousand Cuban medical personnel, 789 of them trained doctors, are working in remote mountain villages in Pakistan. Of the doctors, 44 per cent are women. Though hailing from a tropical island, the Cubans are not complaining about living in tents in freezing weather and in an alien culture."

Taken from: flonnet.com

There are thousands of Cuban doctors helping around the world, as you many know.

Again, I don't think Cuba is some paradise, Casto has done some bad stuff. However, there has been many positive things to come out of Cuba and you right wingers just don't want to hear that.

[Dilbert: Welcome to Blogcritics. The convention here is to use properly formatted active links. I learned how to do it at htmlcodetutorial.com
Thanks. Comments Editor]

Think of all the communist countries that have not become oppressive and compare that with the number of capitalist countries which remain more or less free.

I rest my case.

"Think of all the communist countries that have not become oppressive and compare that with the number of capitalist countries which remain more or less free."

There is some truth to that, although it is burried under tons of propaganda. However, you have to define "free". It seems capitalist countries are "free" as long as they accept certain economic policies, which themselves tend to be un-democratic, taking economic policy out of democratic decision making. If countries try to develop outside of these accepted policies they're attacked financially and militarily, like what is happening to Venezuela. Haiti, for instance, tried nothing more than populist capitalism, coup supported by US. Venezuela & Bolivia are now under attack. If Nicaragua follows suit, they're next. If they dis-continued these policies, even if the population supports them, the attacks will stop and the countries will be "free" again. Ring ring, I think Orwell is on the other line.

My bad about the links.

Dilbert,

You ask:

Do you not, logically, realize why per-capita income numbers don't tell much of anything?

Did you not see my #12? Those are gross national total GDP rankings, not per capita.

Here's how the CIA World fact Book defines the data:

"This entry gives the gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States. This is the measure most economists prefer when looking at per-capita welfare and when comparing living conditions or use of resources across countries." (Emphasis mine)

Here they are again:

You didn't want per capita income, so here's the list, based on GDP (Purchasing Power Parity), according to the CIA Fact Book:

COUNTRY AND WORLD RANK

Brasil 12
Mexico 15
Argentina 23
Colombia 30
Chile 46
Peru 50
Venezuela 53
Dominican Republic 72
Ecuador 74
Guatemala 75
Costa Rica 82
Cuba 89

Rankings are estimated from 2005.

As the definition explains, this data measures the "quality of life" intangibles in terms of the wealth of the nation. It is, as noted, the data preferred by economists for such measurements.

My original point about Cuba was in regards to its poverty, which the figures I presented support.

You repeatedly mention the embargo, yet never acknowledge that the embargo only prohibits US based entities from trading with Cuba. Cuba is free to trade with any other country in the world willing to trade with it, and does.

Cuba's principal problem in re importing what it needs is its poverty; it has no money (because it does not have a productive economy) to buy goods and services abroad.

It does appear, from some of your links, that the Cubans have made some significant strides in implementing organic agricultural procedures. Good for them.

However, here are some interesting passages from some of your own links:

From Wikipedia:

However, in 2000 the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act was passed, and the US is now the single largest source for imported food.[31][32] The Cuban American National Foundation state that the US embargo does not include medicines and medical supplies to the Cuban people. It also states that should Cuba choose not to purchase from the U.S., it can purchase any medicine or medical equipment it needs from other countries. Such third-country transactions only cost an estimated 2%-3% more than purchases from the U.S. as a result of higher shipping costs.[5]

And:

The difficulty in gaining access to certain medicines and treatments has led to healthcare playing an increasing role in Cuba's burgeoning black market economy, sometimes termed "sociolismo". According to former leading Cuban neurosurgeon and dissident Dr Hilda Molina, "The doctors in the hospitals are charging patients under the table for better or quicker service." Prices for out-of-surgery X-rays have been quoted at $50 to $60 dollars. [37] Such "under-the-table payments" reportedly date back to the 1970's, when Cubans used gifts and tips in order to get health benefits. The harsh economic downturn know as the "Special Period" in the 1990's aggravated these payments. The advent of the "dollar economy", a temporary legalisation of the dollar which led some Cubans to receive dollars from their relatives outside of Cuba, meant that a class of Cubans were able to obtain medications and health services that would not be available to them otherwise.[38]

And:

As well as its national health coverage, Cuba attracts paying health tourists, generating revenues of around $40m a year for the Cuban economy. In 2002 more than 5000 foreign patients travelled to Cuba for a wide range of treatments including eye-surgery, neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinsons disease, and orthopaedics. Most patients are from Latin America although medical treatment for retinitis pigmentosa, often known as night blindness, has attracted many patients from Europe and North America. Cuba also successfully exports many medical products, such as vaccines.[49]

Some complaints have arisen that foreign "health tourists" paying with dollars and senior Communist party officials receive a higher quality of care than Cuban citizens. Former leading Cuban neurosurgeon and dissident Dr Hilda Molina asserts that the central revolutionary objective of free, quality medical care for all has been eroded by Cuba's need for foreign currency. Molina says that following the economic collapse known in Cuba as the Special Period, the Cuban Government established mechanisms designed to turn the medical system into a profit-making enterprise. This creates an enormous disparity in the quality of healthcare services between foreigners and Cubans leading to a form of tourist apartheid. In 1998 she said that foreign patients were routinely inadequately or falsely informed about their medical conditions to increase their medical bills or to hide the fact that Cuba often advertises medical services it is unable to provide. [50] The Cuban American National Foundation makes similar claims, also stating that senior Communist party and military officials can access this higher quality system free of charge.[6]In 2005, an account written by Cuban exile and critic of Fidel Castro, Carlos Wotzkow, appeared showing apparent unsanitary and unsafe conditions in the "Clínico Quirúrgico" of Havana.[51] The Clínico Quirúrgico is reported to be one of the better hospitals available to Cubans [citation needed]; the article claims that health care for Cubans occurs in worse conditions in the rest of the country.

Your citation of "the blockade and its effects on healthcare," dates from 1999, prior to the loosening of restrictions mentioned above, and thus is no longer relevant. Additionally, it is not a blockade; it is an embargo. the two are entirely different; a blockade is a physical barrier (usually ships, as in our revolutionary war) preventing ALL trade with ANY nation, which is not the case with the US embargo of trade with Cuba by US entities only.

Finally, we've gotten way off topic, simply because I said (and showed) Cuba is one of the poorest nations in the Americas. The original article is about Venezuela, not Cuba, and I really don't want to derail the thread any further.

Dilbert, out of curiosity, who do you think is 'attacking' Venezuela and Bolivia? You sound as paranoid as Chavez.

Now a discussion of who they're planning to attack might be meaningful...

Dave

Didn't notice that. The same point stands. GDP is a macro number, says nothing about how that wealth is distributed within the country. Given how the financial markets work, along with central banks and the fractional reserve banking system, this simply means that the countries listed implemented policies that were beneficial to investors. Does that mean those policies have been beneficial to the general public? Of course not but you wouldn't get to that conclusion by simply looking at GDP numbers anyway. If you looked at things like poverty, access to healthcare and education, you would get a better picture.

GDP is a horrible measurement of the health of a country. I find it interesting that you asked me to use an "objective" source then use the World Bank and the CIA as the basis for your analysis.

One of my personal heroes is an economist by the name of Herman Daly. Daly is a proponent of "no growth" economics and has written one of the most important books of my lifetime (Beyond Growth: The economics of sustainable development). He was at the World Bank for years and even though his ideas destroy typical neo liberal/free market dogma, they have been for the most part ignored at the World Bank. One of the things he talks about is how free market capitalism arrives at prices and national indicies like GDP. If a country extracts resources from the environment quicker than it can grow back, a cost, the cost it creates isn't reflected in GDP numbers. As the Amazon has been deforested Brazil's GDP has grown. In 2006 an area the size of Maryland was deforested in Brazil. Is Brazil, hell all of us, better off as a result? Well, at this point they have money to but goods but future generations will have fewer resources for their use which will cause their economies to shrink. Is pollution and other externalities, which are gigantic, subtracted from GDP? Are these costs reflected in the prices that people pay for goods and resources? No. If they were, prices would rise, which would lead to calls for re-distribution of purchasing power, the ultimate no no in free market economics. GDP and the pricing mechanism is created by the same orthodox economists who believe in free market ideas. That's why free market capitalism always talks about "efficiency". When they construct their numbers only the purchase of the goods is considered, not the costs associated with the creation of those goods or the extraction of those resources.

GDP, and per capita, hide many truths. I've provided you links that prove, despite Cuba's relative isolation, what they've been able to accomplish. If they wanted to increase GDP or per capita consumption they could open up their country to international investment. We know what that will mean. The central bank will contract credit, raise interest rates (which will provide a "good investment climate", low inflation, high IR). They will liberalize capital and financial flows and the second they do something investors don't like they'll pull their money out and Cuba will be like every other country in Latin America. They will only consider economic policies that keep investors happy, regardless as to what it does to the general public. There's a reason why free market ideas are in retreat in Latin America.

Dave, are you kidding me? You must have heard of the 2002 coup attempt. You also probably know that high levels of the Bush administration new about it and supported it as it happened. You also probably know about the close ties the media in Venezuela has with elite sectors domestically and in Washington. You might have also noticed the "separatist movements" in Bolivia. Just by chance, the areas that have gas deposits in Bolivia happen to want to separate from the Bolivian state. Morales has talked about using the sale of gas and oil to benefit every Bolivian and the states that have these deposits want to separate. Here's some articles on the subject (it is from left wing sources but, not surprisingly given who owns the media, the rest of the media has ignored the story or told it from the separatist's side). Out of laziness, I'll use basically one source, Znet. If you want the "other side", it will at least give you a background about what I'm talking about:

There's a reason why free market ideas are in retreat in Latin America.

Which would be that communist dictatorship cannot survive the pressure of a free market, so every effort has to be made to keep freedom of all sorts out of the region.

Dave

"Which would be that communist dictatorship cannot survive the pressure of a free market, so every effort has to be made to keep freedom of all sorts out of the region."

Oh. So you're sticking to the "I'm going to make the most general, cliché platitude I can think of" line of thinking huh? I won't waste my time on you. Fact and logic obviously won't change the fact that you took free market econ 101 and refuse question a single thing. People like you are the right equivalent of Marxists.

If people CHOOSE these policies, as they have in Venezuela and Bolivia, under democratic governments, how can you say there is a lack of freedom? How do you define freedom? I'll give you time to check your Milton Friedman quote book...

"Didn't notice that. The same point stands. GDP is a macro number, says nothing about how that wealth is distributed within the country. Given how the financial markets work, along with central banks and the fractional reserve banking system."

OK then, Dilbert, here's a much better yardstick: try the UN's standard of living/quality of life index, the HDI ... which does examine how wealth is distributed and covers such things as general well-being, health, happiness, education, child health, satisfaction and all-round quality of life. Most Latin American countries are getting towards the bottom of that list. Even the top South American countries on the list, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, come in around 36, 38 and 43. Overall, the information on these lists makes for a very telling set of statistics.

Dilbert,

You write (in #36):

If a country extracts resources from the environment quicker than it can grow back, a cost, the cost it creates isn't reflected in GDP numbers. As the Amazon has been deforested Brazil's GDP has grown. In 2006 an area the size of Maryland was deforested in Brazil.

And yet, Bjorn Lomborg, in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist", states:

..."total forest loss in the Amazon since the arrival of man has only amounted to 14 percent.

Elsewhere in the same book Lomborg tells us:

"WWF confides in us that nowhere is deforestation more manifest than in Brazil, which 'still has the highest annual rate of forest loss in the world.' In actual fact the deforestation rate in Brazil is among the lowest as far as tropical forest goes; according to the UN the deforestation rate in Brazil is at 0.5 percent per year compared to an average of 0.7 per year."

While your basic statement is true as far as it goes; Brazil's GDP IS growing, very little of that growth is due to the cutting down of the Amazon rain forest.

I think we need to keep an important thing in mind when considering Cuba's GDP. In Cuba the prices of goods are relative. For example a gallon of milk in Cuba is about 5 cents on the dollar. Taking this into account would raise Cuba's GDP tremendously. When you mention other countries GDP the prices of goods are also much higher. That is why you cant judge Cuba's standard of living on its GDP. Their economic system is very different than in Capitalist countries. In Cuba, the prices of basic goods in Cuba have not changed since 1959.

Dilbert,

Professor Lomborg's book was published in 2001, and his figure is from the Brazilian INPE (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais - National Institute of Space Research) report of 2000.

Here's an updated figure for total loss of the Amazon forest as of 2005 from Wikipedia,which also cites the INPE report (of 2005):

According to INPE, the original Amazon rainforest biome in Brazil of 4,100,000 km² was reduced to 3,403,000 km² by 2005 - representing a loss of 17.1%

In other words, the rate from 2000-2005 averaged 0.6 percent per year, so it has increased slightly, but it is still a very small part of Brazil's GDP, because, Wikipedia says,

The 2005-2006 year had a 41% drop in deforestation. This is the lowest figure since 1991. Deforestation rates are expected to go down as conservation has been at a very high rate in the past five years.

And most of that deforestation has been converted into farmland to grow soy beans, of which Brazil is the world's largest producer. The crop certainly adds to the GDP and is renewable, ongoing revenue.

Javier #42,

The CIA World Fact Book explains that its GDP (PPP) figures are weighted to take those differences into account. You can read it in its entirety in #34, above, but it says in part,

A nation's GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rates is the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States.

Dilbert,

You write, in #39:

If people CHOOSE these policies, as they have in Venezuela and Bolivia

First of all, the people didn't choose policies.

They chose two very charismatic men who are particularly adept at speech making and demagoguery to appeal to them. And those people are, for the most part, very unsophisticated, with little, if any, formal schooling, and very little understanding of disciplines like economics. They are poor, grindingly so, and are very receptive to promises of having their lot improved. They are easily swayed and generally very trusting of people more sophisticated than they are.

Chávez and Morales both understand this very well, and are parlaying the trust of those people into their own power trips.

Historically, demagogues like them have delivered very little of what they promised to get into power once they achieve it. All have been ruthless in crushing their opposition. None have set up democratic societies, and early signs of both of these guys seem to be running true to that historical pattern.

#11 -- dilbert

"Just a couple questions to you all: Venezuela is the most participatory government in Latin America (if you want proof I will provide links)".

Please don't, I live in Chile and have been studying Chavezuela for years and its negative effects on it neighboring counties, as it is inescapable living down here.

"Can any of you point out other countries that are "pro-free market" who can say the same? If so, which ones?"

"Also, you said that Cuba is the poorest country in the region. Name the countries better off in Latin America."

CHILE in capital letters.

Another little interesting note dilbert. Dictators ruled both Chile and Cuba. Let's do a little accounting.

CHILE - Chiles dictator Augusto Pinochet seized power in a military coupe in 1973 taking it away from a democratically elected communist party (financially supported by Cuba's dictator via mother Russia). He then ruled for 17 years repairing and reforming an economy out of shambles and he successfully rebuilt it into a strong "pro-free market" economy>
In 1990, by his own order, he turned the country over to free elections and stepped down peacefully.

During his reign he is said to be responsible for 3200 killings of pro communist factions, 87 percent of them died in the two-week mini-civil war that attended his coup. Many more were tortured or forced to flee the country.

Chile today towers over Cube as a " pro-free market" economy, as well as civil rights, free press, social programs, health care, education, the right to freely protest the government, etc, etc, etc, Today it has its first woman President. Through 2005/2006 Bloomberg reported that Chilean Peso was the strongest currency in the world.

CUBA - Cuba's dictator, Fidel Castor, seized power 1959 through a guerrilla militia taking it away from a democratically elected "pro-free market" economy that was thriving and then turned it into a communist state producing an economy that went into shambles. He has fanatically refused to relinquish one once of power, rules with an iron fist, and will not step down peacefully.

During his coninuing reign, now going on 48 years, he is said to be resoonale for the killins of 9,240 people, though the real number could be many times that, particularly if you include the estimate of nearly 77,000 men, women, and children who have died trying to flee the "socialist paradise.

Cuba today is a depressed economy reduced to looking for hand outs to get by and it has nothing to do with US sanctions. When Russians support ended, many EU countries as well as Asian filled in the void and now its lateest free bank is Chavezuels

Go try and blow pick sunshine up someone else's ass.

Have a look at the Island paradise

Cubas GDP is ranked 89th in the world.

Aren't there like 193 countries in the world??

Just trying to get some perspective.

Actually, there are 233.

My original comment was that Cuba is near the bottom IN THE AMERICAS.

We weren't talking about the whole world.

Clavos

Actually

243 countries are considered to be entities in some respect.

HOWEVER:

193 countries have general national recognition

192 countries are member states of the UN

I really wasn't asking. I was being rhetorical.

This is however a real question:

How many countries in this region have the same level or more embargoes or international shunning as Cuba by us and our friends?

From my #34:

You repeatedly mention the embargo, yet never acknowledge that the embargo only prohibits US based entities from trading with Cuba. Cuba is free to trade with any other country in the world willing to trade with it, and does...

...From Wikipedia:

However, in 2000 the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act was passed, and the US is now the single largest source for imported food.[31][32] The Cuban American National Foundation state that the US embargo does not include medicines and medical supplies to the Cuban people. It also states that should Cuba choose not to purchase from the U.S., it can purchase any medicine or medical equipment it needs from other countries. Such third-country transactions only cost an estimated 2%-3% more than purchases from the U.S. as a result of higher shipping costs.[5]...

...[The] citation of "the blockade and its effects on healthcare," dates from 1999, prior to the loosening of restrictions mentioned above, and thus is no longer relevant. Additionally, it is not a blockade; it is an embargo. the two are entirely different; a blockade is a physical barrier (usually ships, as in our revolutionary war) preventing ALL trade with ANY nation, which is not the case with the US embargo of trade with Cuba by US entities only...

Clavos and all, I am responding now, there's a lot to respond to so it'll take a sec. Gotta say though Clavos, you are really good at telling partial truths. You're going to shoot right up the right wing dis-information machine in no time.

Part 1 (tongue in cheek):

Cuba ranks 33rd, according to your CIA Fact Book, in Latin America in GDP but is ranked 5th in the HDI numbers you gave. Are you arguing against me or trying to prove my point? They are economically cut off from the world but have done an amazing job in agriculture, education and healthcare considering that fact. I said, way back when, that Cuba provided an example for countries like Venezuela and THAT is why people like you have such a dislike for Chavez and what he is attempting in Venezuela. Have you, or anyone else, in this thread proven that to not be the case? Of course not, we're arguing minute points, but oh well. I asked you all to prove that Cuba hadn't done an amazing job considering these things and you haven't, and can't show that. I hope you don't forget this point. On to the rest.

I first have to say that I was just using Brazil as an example. I also didn't say, or hint, that the deforestation was the sole, or dominant, reason Brazil has grown. When ANY deforestation happens, it will on its own lead to economics growth (which could be negated elsewhere). I was pointing out that deforestation then, following orthodox economic logic, is good. I could just have easily said the Amazon in general and talked about the countries that are growing, in part, as a result of the deforestation. At some point in the future there will be either no forest or these countries will have to put a stop on logging. Either case proves to be disastrous for these countries, who will be left with little to trade to outside world. Hence, sustainable development should be at the forefront of economic debate and isn't, thanks to blind followers of free market, growth economics.

The Amazonian rain forest is the largest forest in the world. As a result, ONLY cutting down .52% of the forest annually amounts to 2,681,400 hectares of land. Additionally, Greenpeace, who you probably don't trust, says:

"Greenpeace today claimed that Amazon deforestation levels for the period August 2003-August 2004 are much higher than the indicative figures released by the Brazilian Government and may be a new record."

Before you dismiss this, realize that the government admits that illegal deforestation is rampant, a huge problem, that will not be reflected in these figures. According to groups working on Amazonian deforestation, up to ¾'s of deforestation could be illegal, and off the charts. That means that the numbers cited here are potentially only a quarter of the total. Even if they're an exaggeration, realize that the numbers of illegal deforestation are huge and are a result of the profit motive.

Again, the end result of this is either ecological or economic destruction. That is if the current, dominant economic philosophy stays in place...on to the rest

A quick answer to this:

Before you dismiss this, realize that the government admits that illegal deforestation is rampant, a huge problem, that will not be reflected in these figures.

If you had read MY references you would know that INPE arrives at its figures by using satellite and aerial (airplane) photography and surveying. Thus, the illegal deforestation IS accounted for.

Professor Lomborg, whose book is heavily annotated and footnoted (including data from Greenpeace for some of his points) notes that at PRESENT rates, the Amazon will last through the end of the 21st century. He goes on to say (as noted above) that, because of better conservation measures and their heightened enforcement, deforestation rates in the Amazon rain forest are actually DECREASING.

Greenpeace has a vested interest in assuming the worst is happening (it is, after all, their raison d'etre), while Professor Lomborg has none. I choose to believe Lomborg. You should read his book; it's very impressive.

Franco, I don't blame you for not reading every post in this thread. I rarely do in similar situations. Having said that, in above posts I said that Cuba: 1. WASN'T a paradise. 2. Had a bad human rights record under Castro (partly because of orthodox Marxism, more than anything because of decades of terrorist attacks from the world's superpower, 70 miles off its shore). 3. Provided a good AND bad example for countries like Venezuela and stated that I was talking about the good (education, healthcare and agriculture).

I also said in an above post that while certain countries might have a higher ranked systems than Cuba, these systems weren't available to many of the people in those countries (Chile included) and were a result of creating policies beneficial to domestic elites & international investors and not so much so to the general population. Looking at poverty numbers and access to education and healthcare in these countries, how could you argue otherwise? Countries in Latin America have huge amounts of natural resources and, as a result, tons of potential for real development. What the international system has done is "privatize" these resources and taken them out of these countries, paying off domestic elites in the process, to be brought to the "developed countries" to create into finished products. As a result of this, the amount of under-development in the region is mind boggling.

Let's look at Chile for a second. Copper is still nationalized in Chile. Thank god for you it is. It has, historically, been there to save Chile from your free market experiments. In the 70's, Copper, again a nationalized industry, provided about 3/4's of revenue of exports for Chile. Today it is less, a little above 40%, but still the most dominant of all exports (along with other raw materials and resources, if Chile truly HAD developed you would be exporting finished products, not the ingredients to those finished products).

According to a 1998 article from Council on Hemispheric Affairs

"A recent World Bank study showed Chile as the seventh worst country out of sixty-five nations in terms of unequal income distribution -- a designation it shares with Kenya and Zimbabwe. To put Chile's economic inequality in context, the 100 wealthiest people in that country earn more than the government spends on all of its social services."

As you might also know, Chile Plans on Overhauling its Pension System because it has been such a poor job for the so much of the population. The free market didn't work, time to try something more rational.

As a matter of fact, the only times in Chile's history that they have made advancements for the general population they've done so by doing the exact OPPOSITE of free market doctrine. From re-nationalization, to putting back freezes on capital flows, to increased access social programs (like in the early 90's and now). If you look at this objectively, it actually HELPS my argument.

Countries like Chile who've done well have implemented policies that have benefited investors, which make the macro numbers look just wonderful as a result of capital and financial inflows. This is the OBVIOUS reason why Chile is in its position as opposed to Cuba. Having said that, considering that you have access to a computer, can speak English & have free time to web surf, I'm guessing you, or your family, comes from sectors that have done well. Good for you, I guess.

On a macro level, free market economics can only benefit a fraction of the countries in the world. There is a finite amount of natural resources. Countries that accumulate capital take away from the countries that don't. Chile, because of their policies, accumulated capital and developed a little. Since the Pinochet years, Chile has ever so slowly gone leftward on most economic policies and has much more to show for the general population. The pension system, increased social programs and some increases in workers rights are just a handful of examples and, again, help me prove my point. Thank you.

Clavos, I've liked the argument back and forth. We're both obviously passionate about these issues and I get to talk about things I can't with people around me, who aren't into these issues one way of another.

Anyway, my main point is that whether it's 15%, 17% or 20%, we are consuming large amounts of the Amazon each year. At current pace, it will be gone and will ecologically collapse far before it's entirely gone. If we care about our future relatives, we shouldn't wait until that day is in front of us to do something. Cutting down on the rate of deforestation is a nice start, but more radial measures will be needed.

I won't start another argument, but the lack of real growth (when we do hit a wall as far as available natural resources) will be the end of capitalism. From that point on, humanity will have no choice but to work cooperatively, or will be in constant war.

I have wanted to, honestly, read the book by Lomborg. It was a big hit with some I know a couple years ago when I was in college. I will say that I've heard his conclusions are different than most anyone else working on the issues, and the book is pretty controversial as your probably know. You shouldn't rest your entire outlook though on one person. Yes, Greenpeace has an agenda but so does Lomborg. He has a career & possibly an ideological bias to further and I don't know who he is associated with. None the less, like I said, I'll give it a look and add it to the list.

In return, give Herman Daly's book a read. Even if you don't agree, you might challenge some of your basic precepts, which is a healthy thing.

About the blockade, and the act you cited: The act allows SOME medical supplies to get through (mainly as a result of the corporate lobby who want(ed)s access to new markets, however small). However, those supplies have to go through hell to get through the island and are still a small fraction of what is needed. . I was involved with a group that wanted to give Cuba computers to be used in their hospitals and the government blocked their entrance, even after it was proven how they would be used. A country's economic system funds its programs (educational, healthcare, etc). So the blockade's economic impact has greatly effected Cuba's ability to fund its healthcare system, along with the not so friendly to investors economic policy. Of course, oil has been discovered off its coast, so I would imagine further freedom of trade will be allowed in the near future.

One final thing. You said, "First of all, the people didn't choose policies...They chose two very charismatic men who are particularly adept at speech making and demagoguery to appeal to them."

This is not true and the people don't need an education to see that they're starving, can't send their kids to school, can't afford retirement and have no healthcare while they see the richest in their countries, who work no harder (most of the time don't work much at all) living a life of luxury and excess. Economic values like prices, profits & wages are human inventions and aren't rational by themselves. How can you say what I'm doing is worth 5, as opposed to 6, dollars? How can you say that X amounts of profits are too big or small? What these people are saying is that the people creating these numbers are benefiting from their creation. How we arrive at the conclusions about who consumes & owns what should be open to more debate and wider sectors than corporate boardrooms (many times thousands of miles away) and governmental offices. The polls clearly show that people have definite things in mind when voting in these countries now. You and I both know that when a politician says they're "pro-free market" in these countries, or aligns themselves with the US, it creates a loss of support for those politicians.

Dilbert, I am afraid whenever we respond to clavos it just feeds his perverse need for attention.

Yet, it's hard to sit on one's hands and read the mishmash of sleazy propaganda that he throws in the direction of this site's wall, hoping that it will stick like spaghetti.

And he NEVER puts any documentation for his claims. Sorry, but no one's opinions are credible when no information/evidence/facts are given to support them.

And in fact, even clavos' title is misleading. He is equating the Venezuelan project for Twentyfirst Century SOCIALISM with Twentieth Century Communism. Or maybe he doesn't even know the difference in terms.

He says that he's from Latin America, but seems to have absolutely no knowledge of the history of the region and of its socialist and communist parties that now form parts of the mainstream leftist parties here or who are included in party coalitions in the governments of a number of Latin American countries.

The history of the PRD party here in Mexico is very short--it might make an interesting read for folks who have dreams of becoming journalists BEFORE they shoot off their keyboards in Internet sites like this one.

And for those folks posting here who can't seem to get over their days of mourning for the death of their hero, Pinochet, and have to tell us what a fabulous guy he was: Please be advised that the current government of Chile is made up of a coalition of the left and centrist parties. You might want to leave, Franco. (Interesting choice of fascist nombre de guerra, there.)

Next Clavos will be calling the President of Spain a Communist because his party is the PSOE--the Socialist Worker's Party of Spain--and shrieking "Off with his head".

And then there are those nasty socialist countries in Scandinavia that he quietly forgets to accuse of taking the nod from Stalin. Those countries have the highest standard of living in the world--however you want to calculate it.

The point here is that clavos ALWAYS (show me ONE exception, just ONE) presents only lies and half-truths on this site. And Dave helps him write this crap because he can't even write his own stuff, and the MO is the same as Dave's: LIES and half-truths.

And apparently, SO THEY SAY, they are doing all this propaganda hustle FOR FREE!

For those folks who actually have any interest whatsoever in the part of the world in which this poster lives, otherwise known as Latin America (not Central America, as Dave Nalle has told us over and over while claiming us he's an expert on Venezuela), there is a well-reasoned article posted today on the Venezuelan news site, www.venezuelanalysis.com called The Case of Venezuela's RCTV.

Of course Dave and clavos will say the guy is full of shit because he actually lives in Caracas (Oh no, he could not possible know what's happening there!!!!!!!) and is a PhD candidate in Political Theory at (gasp, choke, wheeze) UC Berkeley.

They will also say that Eva Gollinger is full of it, whose piece Confused about Venezuela is also posted on that site today. The fact that she has written two books about Venezuela and held the line in the US to get documents under the Freedom of Information Act about US backing of the 2002 coup attempt against the democratically-elected legitimate president of Venezuela of course cuts no ice with these guys--they know it all.

And if all else fails, they will say the newsite--started several years ago by a US sociologist and journalist who has lived in Caracas for 7 years or so--is a front for the Communist Party!

The bottom line here is....the bottom line:

Venezuela has had 3 years in a row now of more than 10% growth. (Yep, clavos, those poor misguided folks that should not be allowed to make electoral decisions that inconvenience US interests and prestige--are those Kissinger's words, or yours?--voted for the side their bread is buttered on.)

I could go on and on ad nauseum about Venezuela being free of illiteracy (the US is NOT, as clavos is living proof), having the cleanest elections on the planet and providing more aid to its Latin American neighbors than the US does.

But clavos and his bunkmate Dave will just say that the UN is a liar, the Carter Center is a liar, and that that aid is not going to help any of those countries one bit. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on is the level of civil dialog one gets from clavos and Dave.

However, if anyone reading this thread wants to have info from the horse's mouth--instead of clavos' lies and misinterpretations of what he said, you can buy and read the book I just finished reading at lunch today:

HUGO CHAVEZ: EL DESTINO SUPERIOR DE LOS PUEBLOS LATINOAMERICANOS Y EL GRAN SALTO ADELANTE (Conversations with Heinz Dietrich). Joral Editores, Mexico. 2006. ISBN 968-5863-14-8

It's a bit out of date now, as Chavez moves as close to the speed of light as anyone governing a country could. But it is the REAL stuff--not a bunch of fantasies made up by clavos and thrown onto this cite with no documentation.

I also fail to see why this thread is mostly about Cuba.

For the geographically challenged, Venezuela and Cuba are two very different countries--although they have somethings in common: Caribbean culture, lots of folks of African descent, mandioka as a staple of the traditional diet, the Spanish language--and Fidel and Hugo were both born under the sign of Leo (the fact that Cuba's government is currently headed by Gemini Raúl should not matter a whit--just like no facts ever matter to the person who posted the piece of propaganda were have been responding to.)

What, I'm afraid, it comes down to for many folks is the following: The president of Venezuela is sitting on the world's largest petroleum reserves, enormous reserves of natural gas, lots of WATER, gold, URANIUM, diamonds, etc. And he is NOT WHITE.

Racism is alive and well just about everywhere. Anyone who think otherwise is a damn fool.

The thread has turned to be about Cuba to ALARM the simpletons among us.

The problem is that those that will be SCARED will already hold the same beliefs as the author.

Clavos,

All I can say is you can sure bring um in. From the huge size of the individual post and their shear number, you have created a workhorse of a thread.

To bad these are not orders of boats.

Anyway, Moonys back and she and Dilbert clearly came out of the same "re-education" camp, both graduating with honors. Only differance is, Dilbert is civil in his discussions.

I have been working on a reply to Dilbert because of it, and while doing so I reviewed all of his posts and your replies and most everyone elses with few exceptions. During this review the same thought about Moony came to mind about Dilbert.

Have you had any of the same thoughts?

Oh, forgot to add.......Nice well written article.

54 --Dilbert

I have gone back and read all of your posts and their corresponding replies in effort to "get on page with you".

You have put up several issues for discussion/debate and you have articulated them well, and made interesting assertions. Most all of the issues I am familiar with through interest and study, and or having first hand knowledge though professional experience. All of them I would like to discuss/debate with you.

In keeping posts from becoming behemoths (which really pisses SHARK off) resulting in attempting to try posting all issue together and at once, I propose to handling them in separate posts in the sequence you posted them and there subject matter. This will hold each post to medium length the best we can. Mixing issues in a post is natural when making assertions, points, and relationships with the other issue and that is fine, but I do not what to suffer the lose of a issue by burring it in other issues for the sake of clarity for intellectual honesty in discussion/debate.

These issues you have put up can be simply in category - Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Capitalism/Socialism, National Resource value added products, and Deforestation.

I would like to start with our first post, #11

Chavez has support of over 2/3's of the population (obviously insignificant to you people) and was recently elected by a 23% margin.

This assertion in not in contention with me because I do not see this as insignificant. It is one of the most significant things of all. The neglected poor and uneducated masses of Venezuela want and need change. Who in that situation would not?

The issue of concern with me, and I believe with others on this thread, is where is Chavez going from here when one can not dismiss or ignore facts of his step by step process at total transformation of the government into a consolidation of power for himself. Add to this his close intimate ties with Castro and they're shared like-minded thinking of two military communists and their like-minded thinking with total control of their nations. Chavez has started to transform Venezuela like Castor transformed Cuba. This gives cause for concern when one understands the oppression of the Cuban people under Castro. You see it as the people of Venezuela giving Chavez his power and I see it as him taking it just like Castro.

Just to name a few of many Chavez's Castor stile transformation...

Control over the central bank
Removal of constitutional presidential term limits
Shutting down the free press if in opposition to him or his state agenda
Making it a crime to criticize the president, or the government, or its agenda
These are all measures taken to implement oppression of the people.

The only single exception is the difference in wealth between the two communist states. That begs the question, if Castor has proved anything it is that his socialist system of government without a source of capital, can not support itself as was also the case with the former Soviet Union. So how is Chavez going to prove communism works on its own merrit with an abundance of capital, he can't, and that becomes the paradox.

He can buy the communist success with his capital, but he can't grow it or support it with out it just like in Cuba. The whole thing smells of hypocrisy through and through. The width breath and depth of the hypocrisy can not even be fathomed when considering the trillions of dollars he personally has his hands on directing for there use.


As you all know, and chose to ignore, the previous governments didn't pay attention to the poor even though they were the vast majority of the population.

This assertion is not in contention with me. This pattern in Latin America has repeatedly played itself out in every nation in Latin American And it has been wrong. So do not think I ignore this, on the contrary, I deplore it.

The clause that he wants to put in the constitution that would allow him to be elected indefinitely is very democratic. His plan, which again you didn't mention, is to recall himself and put the idea up for national referendum.

This assertion is faults. National referendum semdum. When the president in power starts to shut down the opposition free press, FOR ANY REASON, promots a single party line, makes it crime to criticize the president, and or the government, and or its official parthy line agenda, he can do just about anything he wants as long as he keeps the poor uneducated masses under control and trusting him. That is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination.

Mark my words, presidential term limits have already been eliminated , the rest is all formality and show. You ironically support this fact when you state, So, if passed, you couldn't blame him for it becoming law, it would be the Venezuelan people who would support it.

Whether you people like their decision is irrelevant and any other government to intervening for any reason would be anti-democratic.

This assertion is faults. To steal the accolades away from true democracy as Chavez is doing, then for you to say whether we like it as being irrelevant is a faults asserting based on one simple fallacy. Chavez is the one intervening and creating the anti-democracy, not some outside threat. Your supporting this is puzzling when so many can see through it. Your support of this is assisting in condemning the poor and uneducated masses of Venezuelans in having been cheated from real democracy.

However, I don't think any country is going to come to rescue the poor from Chavez today. Why should they at this point, there being bought and paid for by Chavez who will continue to give them things to keep his shame democracy going and hte masses under control while he plans other step by step changes for Chavezeula. Chavez knows that these very acts of good will to his people will not justify another nation coming in to stop him who see him for what he truly is. A communist military dictator making his best friends of other communist military dictators.

Getting back to the poor, Chavez's money machine and his handouts is the only good that comes out of this scame for the poor, but like all scams they have there limits. As long as he can take care of the poor and improve their lives he will have their backing. He can not let them get to advanced or he could loose control of them. So do not call Chavez scams of anti-democracy true democracy. They are not even in the same star system.

Franco,

Thanks for your #61.

I have to go out in a few minutes, so this will be a short comment. Anyway, I want to se the rest of your comments to Dilbert.

I think you're selling Dilbert short by lumping him in with Moonie. Yes, many of his ideas are similar to hers, but he's amply shown he enjoys discussing and the back-and-forth of real debate. As you pointed out, he's civil.

I'm glad to see him join the thread. Debate and exchange of ideas is what it is (and should be) about.

That said,

Dilbert:

As I mentioned, I don't have much time right now, but will be back later. I do have a small, semantic dispute with your last comment;

The US embargo of Cuba is NOT a blockade. A blockade, by definition, interdicts ALL trade with the target country. With with modern technology, a blockade is almost impossible to enforce these days. In simpler times, blockades were accomplished with ships preventing physical access to the target nation.

The US action against Cuba is an embargo, and it enjoins ONLY US entities and their subsidiaries from trading with Cuba. Other nations are free to do so, and in fact, many do. Venezuela is one notable example.

Gotta go, but I hope we can continue to debate, Dilbert.

I hate to even distrurb the international communist lovefest here, but sometimes a bit of realism can be helpful.

What, I'm afraid, it comes down to for many folks is the following: The president of Venezuela is sitting on the world's largest petroleum reserves, enormous reserves of natural gas, lots of WATER, gold, URANIUM, diamonds, etc. And he is NOT WHITE.

Interesting point and it might be valid if you replaced the insane racist fantasy with something sensible. Like taking out 'he is not white' and replacing it with 'he's a warmongering communist dictator'. Since he'd pass for white in any neighborhood in America, that argument won't fly, so perhaps pointing out the real reasons people are concerned might make more sense.

Dave

Franco said: "All I can say is you can sure bring um in. From the huge size of the individual post and their shear number, you have created a workhorse of a thread."

Yeah, all of Clav's bloody stories have long legs ... the bugger. So, you ask, how's he do it??

I have an idea: next time I write a story about something happening in Australia, I am going to throw in a mention of that bloody Chavez ("the Australia dollar is falling, and analysts think it's because of ... Chavez! ...") - and then watch 'em bite as they get reeled right in!

Hello Moonraven!

Homeboy needs glasses. Or he has never seen Chavez. Or maybe both things are the case....

Chavez prides himself on his African/indigenous features. On one of his trips to Mexico (the summit where GW Bush was caught on camera drooling out the left side of his mouth ), when Chavez was being interviewed on Televisa, he pointed out his African features--lips and hair.

And I can personally vouch for exactly what he looks like--even to the texture of his skin.

So don't give me that garbage about his passing for white.

Racism stinks--and there's no point in trying to deny it by hypocritically taking the high road and saying Chavez is a "warmongering communist dictator".

1. Name one war he is mongering or has mongered. Don't you ever get tired of lying?????He has repeatedly challenged the warmongering US government for its creation of racist wars to steal petroleum and peddle arms. He hasn't been nominated for the Nobel PEACE prize because he dropped bombs on Bogota. Get real.

2. Clavos conveniently did not link us to Chavez' speech where he SUPPOSEDLY said he was a communist. There's a reason for that: HE SAID NO SUCH THING. But he DID say that socialists and communists were represented in his government. And Clavos, ever the wily South Florida anti-Castro/anti-Chavez sniveler, also neglected to mention that longtime COMMUNIST Jose Vicente Rangel was removed from the Vice Presidential post he had held for several years.

3. Dictator????!!!!!That would be funny if you were not such a vicious, hysterical liar. In your book a popular and re-elected president is ALWAYS a dictator? (GWBush, maybe--as you ashholes have handed all your civil rights over to that crosseyed fanfarron.) I guess so far as US history goes, FDR should go down in history as an "antifascist warmongering dictator"....

No matter how many times you pathetic coldwar retreads say it, a LIE is not the truth.

Any moment now I expect you and Clavos to shriek "Shoot the gooks".

We had a name for folks like you back in the 60s: Racist pigs.

Marthe, here in Texas we're an ethnically diverse lot, but Chavez could certainly pass for close enough to white that no one would care. I know plenty of Texas Mexicans who are way more ethnic looking than he is and his african features are entirely in his imagination. Just going by skin tone he's certainly not dark, judging by a dozen photos or so. I suppose they could be photoshopping him whiter, but then that's the kind of thing that only happens in your fevered imagination.

Of course I don't have your experience of being up close and personal with him. He might look darker in that dim, boudoir lighting.

And regardless, there's still no racism in the objections of anyone here towards Chavez. What on earth does race have to do with it, and why is that the conclusion you immediately jump to? Suffering a little white guilt there yourself and doing a bit of projecting, perhaps? If it were racism wouldn't we be complaining just as much about every other south american leader?

As for your three issues.

1. Why does he need hundreds of thousands of AK-47s, a disproportionately large army and and AK-47 factory? You don't use assault rifles to plow the land or spread goodwill. Is he or is he not training terrorists and revolutionaries from a dozen different countries in Venezuela?

2. I've got nothing on Clavos' quote. Obviously Chavez is a Communist, so why should we be surprised that he might have said so?

3. I'll agree with you on FDR being a warmongering dictator in a certain sense. He had a lot of the characteristics. You can't deny that Chavez has shut down the opposition press and is trying to become president for life. Even if the people go along with him as they did with Mussolini, Hitler and FDR, the end result is the same.

Dave

Dave,

You have only looked at PHOTOS of Chavez????

That's all you know about this guy?????

That's what makes you a self-appointed expert on Venezuelan politics!!!?????

That is PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One does not have to be in a bedroom setting to give a hug and a kiss to someone who deserves both. And to see the color of his skin, the shape of his lips and the texture of his hair!

It's true that there are probably Mexicans here in my state of Morelos who are darker than Chavez--as well as the big majority that are a lot lighter. But that's because here in Morelos (as well as in Guerrero and Veracruz states) there are a fair number of folks of mixed African descent (from slaves who were brought here to work in the sugar cane).

I am calling your attitude racist because that is the only explanation for your lying belligerance that has even one shred of behavioral logic to it. Or maybe it's just plain old ENVY????? Paint you green, Homeboy?

As for MY racist guilt--Homeboy, you apparently have never copped to my being Native American. So your nonsense about my projections are just that: absolute nonsense.

And then there is this Homeboy howler: "If it were racism wouldn't we be complaining just as much about every other south american leader?"

Which other South American leader that you are aware of is of African descent???????????

Evo and Correa are indigenas,

Ulribe is whiteboy criollo, as is Kirschner, ditto Lula and Tabare Vazquez.

Bachelet is criolla.

Garcia APPEARS to be mestizo.

The president of Paraguay APPEARS to be mestizo.

Jagdeo (Guyana) APPEARS to be mestizo but may be African/indigena like Chavez.

Venetiaan (Suriname) APPEARS to be of African descent.

French Guiana is an oversees department of France and therefore does not have its own president.

Your ALLEGED point is complete bullsit, homeboy, as the only other South American president of African descent is the president of Suriname--not exactly a major player on the world stage and certainly well below the radar of someone who insisted until a few days ago that VENEZUELA WAS IN CENTRAL AMERICA!!!!!

As for the two indigena presidents, Morales and Corrales--Morales has been defamed and viciously attacked on this site both both you and clavos. And I am sure you already have something up your keyboards against Correa--although he was just sworn in YESTERDAY.

Sure looks like racism to me.

And the three points you thought you were making:

1. "1. Why does he need hundreds of thousands of AK-47s, a disproportionately large army and and AK-47 factory? You don't use assault rifles to plow the land or spread goodwill. Is he or is he not training terrorists and revolutionaries from a dozen different countries in Venezuela?"

Venezuela needs updated weapons because the US will clearly try to invade the country--sooner or later--for its huge reserves of natural resources.

No--he is not training anyone except the Venezuelan reserves.

If you have PROOF (not rumors spread by the Southern Command, PROOF) of his training anyone else, let's see it.

2. "I've got nothing on Clavos' quote. Obviously Chavez is a Communist, so why should we be surprised that he might have said so?"

Well, Clavos made a big deal about something that he SUPPOSEDLY said that he DID NOT SAY. He wrote the above ridiculous piece about it.

OBVIOUSLY Chavez is a communist????? Obvious to WHOM?????? Things are now obvious without any evidence?????? And by the way, the Cold War has been over for a number of years now, Rip von Homeboy. In short: Who the fuck cares????

And finally, this utter drivel:

3. "I'll agree with you on FDR being a warmongering dictator in a certain sense. He had a lot of the characteristics. You can't deny that Chavez has shut down the opposition press and is trying to become president for life. Even if the people go along with him as they did with Mussolini, Hitler and FDR, the end result is the same.

Which warmongering dictator characteristics did FDR have, precisely?

Or was it The New Deal that putt the burr under your saddle?

Chavez has closed NO OPPOSITION press. Which one did you have evidence about? OBVIOUSLY you did not bother to read the article I referenced a few days ago in regard to the probable nonrenewal of a TV STATION's concession.

Chavez may need to be president for longer than this term in order to transform Venezuela from the shithole it was when he took office to a decent country--without poverty, with social justice and without RACISM. If he's willing to stay in the trenches that long, I say MORE POWER TO HIM.

You're always good for a laugh, Marthe. I particularly like your implication that I can't tell what Chavez looks like from photos or have an opinion of him unless I've actually met him in the flesh. As for the rest, the evidence has been posted again and again. But keep up with your combination of insults and denial. It earns you zero credibility in the face of all the facts you continue to deny.

Dave

Precisely WHAT evidence have you posted again and again?????

That's another LIE, Homeboy.

Let me give you a piece of advice:

Put down the photos--both you and clavos--and get on a plane to Venezuela. See what it's REALLY like there. I have--several times. And I am going there again next month.

Beating off to the Playboy centerfold is NOT the same thing as having the girl....

Insults, lies and denial - how far can they take you in the propaganda game, Marthe?

You've seen the links Clavos and I have posted on other threads to the endless documentation of Chavez' abuses. I'm not going to bother anymore. You just deny and reject any facts which don't agree with your delusion - or the one your handlers pay you to have. I'm putting you in the same category as the Chinese shills. Nothing you say can be taken seriously, so I might as well laugh at it. Credibility=0.

dave

Homeboy:

I think it's interesting that EVERY time (not just some times) someone (not only this poster) has asked you for documentation and evidence you say that you have already posted it and can't be bothered to do so again.

Yet you have NEVER--NOT EVEN ONCE--posted anything of the kind. That's just another LIE.

All you have ever posted here is an opinion based on NO information.

And this Chinese shills bullshit: a couple of months ago you were accusing me of working for the Chinese government!

As if the Chinese government would both to hire me--or anyone else--to post on this blog site!!!!

You are completely insane, Homeboy.

On second thought, s