Turning point for South America?

[Phlegmak]

And BTW, you seem to forget that Chavez attemped a coup d'etat before winning the elections, among other things.

Really? Ollanta Hulama did the same thing.

 

[luiz]

Unless you subscribe to the same websites as Pat Robertson, you know very well that he was elected twice with a number of referundems to boot.

Kim Jong Il was elected 100 times. Elections mean nothing when there is harassment.
And of course there are things that shouldn't be done even with popular support.

As for "buying off the poor," well, what can I say to such idiotic and classist statements? Isn't the point of democracy to vote in what you percieve as your own best interest?

Have you ever heard of populism?
By "buying off the poor" I mean investing heavily in short-sighted assistencialist policies that increase the populirity of the preseident in the short term, but does nothing to really eradicate poverty. Ultimately he will lose popularity.

They know very well what didn't work, years of shoddy and intellectually bankrupt economic arguments (neoliberalism or neoclassicism, if you prefer) that worsened the situation for 90 percent. Why is it when the "the poor" vote in their best interest, everyone freaks out?

You obviously know nothing about Venezuela or Latin America. There was never neoliberalism here, only varying degrees of statism.

(And Venezeula is booming at the moment, beyond just oil, even using neolib standards, it has a growth rate of 9 something percent).

They are growing over an extremely reduced base. In Chávez first years the economy fell alot, 25% just in one year.

Not to mention that poverty actually increased under Chávez, as admitted by the Venezuelan bureau of statistics.

I can just easily make the same arguement for you (most likely) being bought off with mass consumption, right-wing propaganda, weak economics, etc.. Your arguements are bogus and undemocratic. (

"Bought off" with mass consumption?
I'm the one doing the buying, not the other way around.

As for "harassing the opposition," who launched the coup? Who controls nearly all the media in Venezuela which nearly all despise Chavez? Gimme a break, all I saw in Caracas was anti-Chavez propaganda.

Who shot anti-government protestors last elections?

As for the S. American situation, it's hard to say. Certainly, the continent has, in many ways, finally overthrown many of worst aspects of neoliberalism and made some important steps to the left, not far enough for me, but its a start. Another good thing is that the US will never be able to operate with the impunity it did in the 80's (except or maybe Columbia) and indulge in severe state-sponsored terror, a positive in my book.

Didn't you read the OP? The far-left is beign defeated in South America.

 

[luiz]

And here's the thing. Supporting Chávez is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of lack of intelligence and sense of ridicule.

Chávez is pathetic, look at the way he dress all in red with that stupid hat. Look at his speeches, a 5 year old has a better grasp of reality (and a far better vocabulary as well).

Allo Presidente is transmitted in Brazil, it is ridiculous. Really moronic stuff.

There is no need to discuss Chávez. His main goal was to reduce poverty, poverty increased under his government as even government agencies admitted. End of discussion. Move along, Chávez fanboys.

 

[Zamecnik]

Kim Jong Il was elected 100 times. Elections mean nothing when there is harassment.
And of course there are things that shouldn't be done even with popular support.

That's so absurd it doesn't really warrant a response. Despite the whining every right-winger, Chavez won fairly as verified by a number of international organizatons.


Have you ever heard of populism?
By "buying off the poor" I mean investing heavily in short-sighted assistencialist policies that increase the populirity of the preseident in the short term, but does nothing to really eradicate poverty. Ultimately he will lose popularity.

Right-wingers always use the term populism when policies are inititated they don't agree with. As for the results of those policies, time will tell.


You obviously know nothing about Venezuela or Latin America. There was never neoliberalism here, only varying degrees of statism.

It's always the same with you neolib wingnuts, you push and push your "reforms" and when they collapse, as they nearly always do being based on shoddy economics, you say they didn't go "far enough." Your ideological extremism shows here, there will never be a "pure" neolib state, just as there will never be a "pure" communist state, etc..



They are growing over an extremely reduced base. In Chávez first years the economy fell alot, 25% just in one year.

Not to mention that poverty actually increased under Chávez, as admitted by the Venezuelan bureau of statistics.

That may be reversing, especially as it takes longer to see the returns on "investments" such as education and the like.


"Bought off" with mass consumption?
I'm the one doing the buying, not the other way around.

I'm not sure what you mean here, I was speaking in a general sense.


Who shot anti-government protestors last elections?

I thought that had been disproven, though I'm not sure about that particular case.


Didn't you read the OP? The far-left is beign defeated in South America.

You call it far-left, I call it movement away from right-wing, free-market fundamentalism. But anyway, even though this or that candidate may be defeated, there is still a recognizable movement towards the left. Even the Peruvian winner is not Urible for instance, not desirable but certainly not a defeat in the broad sense.

 

[Zamecnik]

And here's the thing. Supporting Chávez is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of lack of intelligence and sense of ridicule.

Chávez is pathetic, look at the way he dress all in red with that stupid hat. Look at his speeches, a 5 year old has a better grasp of reality (and a far better vocabulary as well).

Allo Presidente is transmitted in Brazil, it is ridiculous. Really moronic stuff.

There is no need to discuss Chávez. His main goal was to reduce poverty, poverty increased under his government as even government agencies admitted. End of discussion. Move along, Chávez fanboys.

Move along little neolibs, you're time is over.

Chavez lacks a good sense of style to be sure, but he's amusing at the very least.

 

[Zamecnik]

And here's the thing. Supporting Chávez is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of lack of intelligence and sense of ridicule.

Chávez is pathetic, look at the way he dress all in red with that stupid hat. Look at his speeches, a 5 year old has a better grasp of reality (and a far better vocabulary as well).

Allo Presidente is transmitted in Brazil, it is ridiculous. Really moronic stuff.

There is no need to discuss Chávez. His main goal was to reduce poverty, poverty increased under his government as even government agencies admitted. End of discussion. Move along, Chávez fanboys.

There's alot folks who disagree with, btw. Including institutions after your own heart such as the World Bank.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1979

 

[luiz]

Desde la llegada de Hugo Chávez al poder en 1999, la pobreza en Venezuela se incrementó más de un 10%, pasó de ser 42,80% a 53,10%, según el dato difundido por el Instituto Nacional de Estadística oficial de ese país y coincidió con estudios similares realizados por diferentes organizaciones internacionales.

http://www.elargentino.com/news.php?nid=1701
Or go to directly the official website of the Venezuelan Institue of Statistcs, www.ine.gov.ve , and click on "Republica Bolivariana en Cifras" and than on "Distribución de la pobreza, 1998-2004".

It is clear for all to see. In Chávez' first year the poverty rate was at 42.8%, and now it is at 53.10%. That's a massive increase, and very ironic considering that Chávez is supposedely all about helping the poor.

So really, what is admirable about Chávez? Is anti-american rhetoric enough to make him a great president?

PS: Under Chávez the criminality also grew enormously. Under Uribe both poverty and criminality experienced sharp decreases.

 

[Zamecnik]

http://www.elargentino.com/news.php?nid=1701
Or go to directly the official website of the Venezuelan Institue of Statistcs, www.ine.gov.ve , and click on "Republica Bolivariana en Cifras" and than on "Distribución de la pobreza, 1998-2004".

It is clear for all to see. In Chávez' first year the poverty rate was at 42.8%, and now it is at 53.10%. That's a massive increase, and very ironic considering that Chávez is supposedely all about helping the poor.

So really, what is admirable about Chávez? Is anti-american rhetoric enough to make him a great president?

PS: Under Chávez the criminality also grew enormously. Under Uribe both poverty and criminality experienced sharp decreases.

Do you have any idea of what you're talking about? Read this article, goes along way to dispelling the "poverty has increased" myth. It includes statistics from the government as well.

"Poverty Rates in Venezuela: Getting the Numbers Right"

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1740

 

[amadeus]

Any link about the 59% drop or the 9% anual increase?

First, I said 53% drop, but that was an error on my part. The actual drop is 47%.

Of course. My figures come from the Total Economic Database provided by the Groningen Growth and Development Centre.

Venezuela's GDP in 1998 was $205B in 1990 U.S. dollars. Inflation adjusted for 2006, that would place Venezuela in the $307B range, had the economy stayed at a constant 0% growth over the next eight years.

Venezuela's current GDP is $164B in 2006 U.S. dollars at best estimates.

 

[luiz]

Do you have any idea of what you're talking about? Read this article, goes along way to dispelling the "poverty has increased" myth. It includes statistics from the government as well.

"Poverty Rates in Venezuela: Getting the Numbers Right"

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1740

And why would I take the word of this extremely biased website that I never heard of instead of the official instute of statistics of Venezuela

If the INE says that poverty increased, I believe them.

Give up. I shouldn't bother to read websites that biased. I can come up with websites that "prove" that the Eart is flat, you know.
And please tell: why would the government-controlled bureau of statistics lie about the poverty rate? I'm very curious.

 

[Zamecnik]

And why would I take the word of this extremely biased website that I never heard of instead of the official instute of statistics of Venezuela

If the INE says that poverty increased, I believe them.

Give up. I shouldn't bother to read websites that biased. I can come up with websites that "prove" that the Eart is flat, you know.
And please tell: why would the government-controlled bureau of statistic lie about the poverty rate? I'm very curious.

Dude, read the article, you're using out of date and out of context info (not suprising I guess) using official statistics:

"Thus if we compare the latest available data to the start of the present government, the household poverty rate fell nearly 5 percentage points – from 42.8 percent in the beginning of 1999 to 37.9 percent in the second half of 2005. The household poverty rate was thus reduced by 12.9 percent. Measuring individuals instead of households, the poverty rate decreased by 6.3 percentage points –from 50 percent of the population to 43.7 percent. That was a 14.4 percent reduction in poverty. Since the economy has continued to grow rapidly this year (first quarter growth came in at 9.4 percent), the poverty rate is almost certainly significantly lower today.

How then have so many people reached a different conclusion? The most common mistake has been to use the data from the first half of 2004, which was gathered in the first quarter of that year. The household poverty rate at that time was 53.1 percent, which is of course up enormously from 1999. There are several things wrong with using this measure. Most importantly, this poverty rate is measuring the impact of the oil strike and recession of 2002-2003.

Poverty rates are very sensitive to expansion and downturns in the economy, so to compare 1999 with the first quarter of 2004, leaving off the subsequent recovery, is meaningless and misleading. As noted above, the Venezuelan economy grew by 17.9 percent in 2004, and by 9.3 percent in 2005. We would expect and, in fact, did see a massive reduction in poverty from an economic recovery of this magnitude. So most of the news reports and articles alleging an increase in poverty under the Chávez administration are analogous to comparing winter temperatures to spring temperatures, and concluding on that basis that there is no global warming.

Also, since a preliminary estimate of poverty rates for 2005 (38.5 percent) was released in September of that year, it is not clear why anyone would have used the out-of-date numbers. The economy had by that time already grown by more than 18 percent[6] since the first quarter 2004 numbers were collected; it should therefore have been clear that the early 2004 numbers, which reflected the prior recession, were a very serious overestimate of the poverty rate.

Some articles and reports continue to rely on this out-of-date, early 2004 data, questioning the more recent data as somehow not comparable, or as not plausible."

 

[Zamecnik]

And why would I take the word of this extremely biased website that I never heard of instead of the official instute of statistics of Venezuela

If the INE says that poverty increased, I believe them.

Give up. I shouldn't bother to read websites that biased. I can come up with websites that "prove" that the Eart is flat, you know.
And please tell: why would the government-controlled bureau of statistics lie about the poverty rate? I'm very curious.

Why would I give up, you're completely wrong. And it has nothing to do with lying, you're just using information selectively.

 

[luiz]

Yeah, the official bureau of statistics of Venezuela is using selective information, and some obscure and biased website is correct. Nevermid the fact that INE is controlled by the government and has no interest whatsoever in making it look bad.
Please.

 

[amadeus]

Here's some other statistics out there that might be good to digest.

According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Carribean, the percentage of the population who earned less than $1 per day in Venezuela jumped from 14.6% in 1990 to 22.7% in 2004.

Transparency International's survey of corruption perceptions placed Venezuela at 130th of 159 nations surveyed, behind Sierra Leone, Russia, and even Zimbabwe.

 

[jameson]

Venezuela's current GDP is $164B in 2006 U.S. dollars at best estimates.

Not a very good comparison, comparing a figure in 1990 dollars with a figure in 2006 dollars. According to the GGDC dataset, Venezuela's GDP in 2004 was approximately $202bn in 1990 dollars (I'm not sure at which point in the year this datapoint was collected). Still a slight decline from 1998, but nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

Yeah, the official bureau of statistics of Venezuela is using selective information, and some obscure and biased website is correct. Nevermid the fact that INE is controlled by the government and has no interest whatsoever in making it look bad.

I'm sure you'll be pleased, then, to note that the updated figures from the INE for the second semester of 2005 show the the poverty rate to have declined to 37.9 % ( on edit, like Zamecnik pointed out ).

*no approval of Chávez implied, btw.

Anyway, I don't think that Bolivarianism is at all dead in Latin America, though I wouldn't mind if it were. The phenomenon will persist as long
as extreme poverty exists among significant parts of the population and nothing is done about it. Of course I'm not an expert on Peru but I wouldn't be surprised if the rejection of Humala had a lot to do with his role in the war against Sendero Luminoso and the dubious role of his father and brother in other uprisings . Don't be surprised if Humala gets elected in the second go-round if García screws up like he did the last time. Also, keep in mind that García's APRA party is historically leftist; essentially, I would say that Peru chose between a moderate leftist (who now has the third way talk down pat) and a far left party.

I would also discount the importance of Uribe's reelection in relation to the Chavist 'revolution', Colombia has some unique local circumstances and real leftist parties have been violently oppressed there in the past; there is no serious legitimate leftist political opposition there that I'm aware of. The Colombian election was about delivering law and order first and foremost, once those are settled I'm sure the leftists will come out of the woodwork .

 

[amadeus]

Not a very good comparison, comparing a figure in 1990 dollars with a figure in 2006 dollars.

I had them inflation-adjusted for 2006.

According to the GGDC dataset, Venezuela's GDP in 2004 was approximately $202bn in 1990 dollars (I'm not sure at which point in the year this datapoint was collected). Still a slight decline from 1998, but nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

Every other source I have says their GDP contracted during the 2003-2004 period, so that entry may have been an error on their part.

 

[jameson]

I had them inflation-adjusted for 2006.

I'm not sure what you mean here; as near as I can tell, the 1998 and 2004 figures you reference are quoted from two different datasets expressed in two
base currencies.

You earlier said that

Venezuela's GDP in 1998 was $205B in 1990 U.S. dollars. Inflation adjusted for 2006, that would place Venezuela in the $307B range, had the economy stayed at a constant 0% growth over the next eight years

.

This is simply not possible. By converting every figure back to 1990 dollars, the adjustment for inflation (and exchange rate fluctuation) is [/i]already done[/i]. So if Venezuela had stayed at a constant 0% growth from '98 to '04, its GDP in 2004 would have remained exactly the same as in '98.

Every other source I have says their GDP contracted during the 2003-2004 period, so that entry may have been an error on their part.

Or the other sources all referenced the first-quarter numbers from 2004 like Zamecnik referenced instead of the full-year numbers - memes like that are pretty much impossible to kill once they first get out. More generally, you simply can't go referencing a particular dataset as the epitome of reliability at one point and assume errors in it the next.

Statistics methodology aside, it's important to note that more is at play in these numbers than the success or failure of Chávez's domestic policy - over the course of the period we're talking about, the world economy as a whole suffered a significant recession. Additionally, over this particular period, oil prices were a lot lower than they are now. With oil prices as they are now, Venezuela's GDP is bound to shoot up regardless of who's in charge. I challenge anyone to separate the effects of the one from the other - maybe we need a set of oil price-adjusted numbers for Venezuela and then we can compare them with countries of a similar economic makeup. Any takers ?

 

[amadeus]

I'm not sure what you mean here; as near as I can tell, the 1998 and 2004 figures you reference are quoted from two different datasets expressed in two base currencies.

Unfortunately, it's hard to pin down good historical figures for economies outside of the OECD. I've searched up and down to find a comprehensive resource for these things, but it's just insanity.

This is simply not possible. By converting every figure back to 1990 dollars, the adjustment for inflation (and exchange rate fluctuation) is [/i]already done[/i]. So if Venezuela had stayed at a constant 0% growth from '98 to '04, its GDP in 2004 would have remained exactly the same as in '98.

I didn't convert anything to 1990 dollars, I converted it from 1990 dollars to 2006 dollars. That was only for the 1998 figure, not the 2006 figure. The 2006 figures were from the IMF, World Bank, and CIA World Factbook.

Or the other sources all referenced the first-quarter numbers from 2004 like Zamecnik referenced instead of the full-year numbers - memes like that are pretty much impossible to kill once they first get out. More generally, you simply can't go referencing a particular dataset as the epitome of reliability at one point and assume errors in it the next.

The GGDC collects figures from other sources, so it's entirely possible that an error was made by a third party source.

Plus, I don't think Zamecnik's resources are entirely reliable.

Statistics methodology aside, it's important to note that more is at play in these numbers than the success or failure of Chávez's domestic policy - over the course of the period we're talking about, the world economy as a whole suffered a significant recession.

How many single resource-based economies have contracted when the price of their one major export earner triples in price?

Additionally, over this particular period, oil prices were a lot lower than they are now. With oil prices as they are now, Venezuela's GDP is bound to shoot up regardless of who's in charge.

That kind of thinking leads to disaster. Extra resources should be a bonus to a good economy, not the backbone of it.

I challenge anyone to separate the effects of the one from the other - maybe we need a set of oil price-adjusted numbers for Venezuela and then we can compare them with countries of a similar economic makeup. Any takers ?

I'll accept that challenge. How many other oil-based economies have declined since 1998?

 

[Zamecnik]

Plus, I don't think Zamecnik's resources are entirely reliable.

They used the exact same source as luiz pointed out, the official office of statistics, the only difference being that luiz (and much of the right-wing press) used that info out of context to make a political point.

 

[luiz]

I'm sure you'll be pleased, then, to note that the updated figures from the INE for the second semester of 2005 show the the poverty rate to have declined to 37.9 % ( on edit, like Zamecnik pointed out ).

Then why there is no such number in the INE website, only the one I pointed out earlier - 53%.
Also, don't you find it odd that poverty would drop from 53% to 37% in one semester. As a matter of fact that it not odd, it is impossible. A decline that big can only be achieved by change in methodology - perhaps due to some pressure to make things not look as bad?
And anyway, I've only seen 37% in Zamenick's obscure and biased website. They claim it came from INE, but I didn't find it at INE.

Of course I'm not an expert on Peru but I wouldn't be surprised if the rejection of Humala had a lot to do with his role in the war against Sendero Luminoso

It had nothing to do with it. If anything this was a factor favouring him. Peruvians hate the Sendero Luminoso, the most violent terrorist group in LA history.

Also, keep in mind that García's APRA party is historically leftist; essentially, I would say that Peru chose between a moderate leftist (who now has the third way talk down pat) and a far left party.

That's what I said in the OP.
García is an incompetent leftist. But he is not Chávez' man.

Colombia has some unique local circumstances and real leftist parties have been violently oppressed there in the past; there is no serious legitimate leftist political opposition there that I'm aware of. The Colombian election was about delivering law and order first and foremost, once those are settled I'm sure the leftists will come out of the woodwork .

Not true. Colombia has a very articulate left-wing party, which has very vocal supporters. The colombian government does not in anyway repress it, and hasn't done so for a long time.
Fact is the FARCs are massively unpopular with colombians. They have terrorised their lifes for too long.
Uribe reduced homicide and kidnapping to about a third, and made the economy grow at 5% in average, which is historically excellent for Colombia. It's no wonder he was reelected in the first round.