Turning point for South America?

[luiz]

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.

I used the info exactly as it appears in the INE website. Go there right now and see it for yourself.
Quite frankly I think your source is making stuff up.

 

[Zamecnik]

I used the info exactly as it appears in the INE website. Go there right now and see it for yourself.
Quite frankly I think your source is making stuff up.

Attack the messenger, huh? Well, you've been proven wrong over and over again, so why not I guess? Yeah, you used the statistics, but failed to mention them in their overall context, the only point the article is trying to make. Sorry, man, you lose, poverty has declined, according to the gov't, World Bank, and a variety of other sources, no amount of twisting of facts can hide that.

 

[luiz]

Attack the messenger, huh? Well, you've been proven wrong over and over again, so why not I guess? Yeah, you used the statistics, but failed to mention them in their overall context, the only point the article is trying to make. Sorry, man, you lose, poverty has declined, according to the gov't, World Bank, and a variety of other sources, no amount of twisting of facts can hide that.

Don't you get it?

Your source does not provide actuall links to where they got the info. They claim it's from the World Bank, the INE and more, but where are the links?

Your source is obscure and biased. As I said I can come up with sources that state that the Earth is flat or that germans are the master race. Does it make it truth?

I, on the other hand, have gone directly to the INE and provided the numbers that they display on their website. The current numbers. Those numbers have no context, they are purely Venezuela's poverty rate.

Now get some info from a reliable source or stop wasting my time. I was polite until here but that's my limit. Quoting "Venezuela Analysis" is like quoting "Flat Earth Society" or "Stormfront".

Note that I don't deny that poverty might be falling in Venezuela in the past year. After all oil is at a record price and Chávez has billions to spend. But fact remains that since he took charge poverty has increased.

 

[Zamecnik]

Don't you get it?

Your source does not provide actuall links to where they got the info. They claim it's from the World Bank, the INE and more, but where are the links?

Your source is obscure and biased. As I said I can come up with sources that state that the Earth is flat or that germans are the master race. Does it make it truth?

I, on the other hand, have gone directly to the INE and provided the numbers that they display on their website. The current numbers. Those numbers have no context, they are purely Venezuela's poverty rate.

Now get some info from a reliable source or stop wasting my time. I was polite until here but that's my limit. Quoting "Venezuela Analysis" is like quoting "Flat Earth Society" or "Stormfront".

Note that I don't deny that poverty might be falling in Venezuela in the past year. After all oil is at a record price and Chávez has billions to spend. But fact remains that since he took charge poverty has increased.

Well, the article about the World Bank is from the Daily Journal
http://www.dj.com.ve/article.asp?CategoryId=10717&ArticleId=233105

The other article uses the exact same sources as you but puts them in context.

As for the oil prices and the general economic state of Venezuela, this piece of an article by Greg Grandin, Professor of Latin American history has some interesting points:

"Considering how well so many Venezuelans are doing under his administration, irrational seems an apt description of the elite hatred of Chávez. Since the government won the fight for control of PDVSA, the economy has grown rapidly: by 18 percent in 2004, and by 9.9 percent in 2005. Currency reserves and current-account surpluses are high, inflation has remained under control, and unemployment has been halved from the height of the crisis in 2003, when it stood at 20 percent. Overall poverty has fallen to its lowest levels in over a decade, and purchasing power is up across the board, rising 43 percent last year among the poorest fifth of the population. General Motors reports that car sales hit record numbers last year.

Critics are loath to give Chávez any points for this boom; they attribute it to skyrocketing oil prices. But one of his first diplomatic initiatives upon taking office was to end Venezuela’s habit of pumping more oil than was allowed under OPEC’s production quotas and to work with Iran and other petroleum-exporting nations to orchestrate an increase in world prices. The government has diverted billions of dollars of PDVSA revenue and Central Bank reserves to diversify the economy and to create a sustainable agricultural sector. Even as the petroleum-related portion of the economy fell a bit in the last quarter of last year, non-oil-related growth accelerated, suggesting that government efforts to diversify the economy are having some effect. Last year, manufacturing was up nine percent while the commercial, construction, and communication sectors were each up 20 percent. Domestic finance has grown 30 percent, partly the result of a new law requiring that nearly a third of all loans go to low-income mortgages and small-scale agriculture, which has led to sharp spikes in deposits and lending. (The state’s underwriting of credit to small businesses and cooperatives has also contributed to this trend.) Chávez’s purchase of billions of dollars of Argentine and Ecuadorian debt has likewise benefited national banks, which buys the debt from the government and then resells it on the open market for a profit."

Link http://bostonreview.net/BR31.3/grandin.html

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Nationalizing industries does often give a short-term, temporary boost to economic numbers. But just like selling next season's seeds to finance today's party, the long-range effect is a downturn as investment money stops coming in anymore because nobody trusts the leadership not to steal the creations their investment capital have created.

 

[luiz]

Context? Like, the context in the freakin' INE website????

As for Venezuela's boom, that's laughable. After catastrophic fall in economic activity some recovery over a diminushed base is natural, it happens after all huge economic crisis. Not to mention oil prices in the skies, which tend to have a positive effect on country's whose main economic activity is oil exportation.

As for a historian supporting Chávez, big news. I'd be more interested in a serious economist supporting his policies(good luck finding one).

BTW, the article from the "Daily Journal of Venezuela" (which seems very biased as well) is only about the substancial economic growth, not at all about poverty.

 

[amadeus]

I almost feel like we're in a time warp, you know, guys? Chavez is the new Daniel Ortega!

In the eyes of a few left-leaning intellectuals and angry youths, Daniel Ortega was a democratically-elected "man of the people" whose sometimes authoritarian measures were deemed necessary to prevent against American "aggression".

Just as Venezuela today, Nicaragua was able to in the 1980s trick some well-meaning individuals (and a few assorted hate-America crowders) into believing that Nicaragua was better off under Ortega than had a moderate leader come into power.

Nicaragua's ruling junta also had access to large sums of cash, especially aid from the Soviet Union, amounting to at least $3 billion annually. Venezuela is no different, except their aid comes from the ground and not Moscow.

Hugo Chavez uses his power in the state to clamp down on opposition and suggests that all of his detractors are U.S. agents. Violeta Chamorro should be able to see the parallels to this by now.

The only difference is that this time, there's no contras.

 

[Zamecnik]

Context? Like, the context in the freakin' INE website????

As for Venezuela's boom, that's laughable. After catastrophic fall in economic activity some recovery over a diminushed base is natural, it happens after all huge economic crisis. Not to mention oil prices in the skies, which tend to have a positive effect on country's whose main economic activity is oil exportation.

As for a historian supporting Chávez, big news. I'd be more interested in a serious economist supporting his policies(good luck finding one).

BTW, the article from the "Daily Journal of Venezuela" (which seems very biased as well) is only about the substancial economic growth, not at all about poverty.

The point is that the economy is growing (and in sectors other than oil, although of course it is the main industry).

The Venezuelan economy was already in the crapper before Chavez came along, and neoclassical policies deepened it. As the sources point out 2002-2003 were rough years, oil strikes and coups (capital flight) tend to do that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, the economy is improving from a rough spot (not entirely Chavez's fault) and the growth seems to be healthy despite your cynicism.
The same website you keep touting also points out that poverty has fallen to levels pre-Chavez.
I don't know, seems fairly clear.

 

[Zamecnik]

I almost feel like we're in a time warp, you know, guys? Chavez is the new Daniel Ortega!

In the eyes of a few left-leaning intellectuals and angry youths, Daniel Ortega was a democratically-elected "man of the people" whose sometimes authoritarian measures were deemed necessary to prevent against American "aggression".

Just as Venezuela today, Nicaragua was able to in the 1980s trick some well-meaning individuals (and a few assorted hate-America crowders) into believing that Nicaragua was better off under Ortega than had a moderate leader come into power.

Nicaragua's ruling junta also had access to large sums of cash, especially aid from the Soviet Union, amounting to at least $3 billion annually. Venezuela is no different, except their aid comes from the ground and not Moscow.

Hugo Chavez uses his power in the state to clamp down on opposition and suggests that all of his detractors are U.S. agents. Violeta Chamorro should be able to see the parallels to this by now.

The only difference is that this time, there's no contras.

I won't defend Ortega or the Sandanista's but the fact remains that the US government supported some pretty horrific things during that time which, Cold War context or not.

As for denouncing everyone as US agents two things:

a) It's not true, most of his vitriol is reserved for the very powerful and wealthy elite of Venezuela, long used to having things their own way and

b) the coup was a murky affair but evidence seems to point to US involvement in some form or another

Given this, and US interest in Venezuelan affairs (and Latin-American affairs in general, its hardly paranoid.

 

[luiz]

The point is that the economy is growing (and in sectors other than oil, although of course it is the main industry).

The Venezuelan economy was already in the crapper before Chavez came along, and neoclassical policies deepened it. As the sources point out 2002-2003 were rough years, oil strikes and coups (capital flight) tend to do that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, the economy is improving from a rough spot (not entirely Chavez's fault) and the growth seems to be healthy despite your cynicism.
The same website you keep touting also points out that poverty has fallen to levels pre-Chavez.
I don't know, seems fairly clear.

The point is that the economy is growing after reaching rock bottom. All economies grow in quick pace after collapse, but that's because they're growing over a small base and there's much installed capacity not beign used. In other words, there is no real economic boom in Venezuela.
(Not to get in the effects of high oil prices).

And yes, the collapse was Chávez fault, and I blame the oil strike on him as well. He turned a professional and business-oriented company, PDVSA, into an endless source of jobs for his illiterate friends. He replaced business for politics.

And no, poverty has not gone back to pre-Chávez levels. It diminushed a bit last year, but is still 10 percentual points bigger than when Chávez took power.

Venezuela is falling apart. Everything there seems to be going bankrupt. Criminality skyrocketed: for the first time in history Caracas is more dangerous than Rio. The murder rate in Venezuela is now bigger than the one in Brazil, traditionally the most violent SA country.

Compare the economic growth, changes in poverty rate and violence of rate in Chávez' Venezuela and Uribe's Colombia, it's very enlightening.

 

[The Last Conformist]

According to Zamecnik, Chavez broke with a previous policy of neoliberalism market fundamentalism. According to my encyclopedia, Chavez's predecessor Rafael Caldera was a Christian Democrat. There seems to be a contradiction somewhere here.

Then again, parts of the Left has an absurdly wide definition of "neoliberalism", sometimes seemingly including everything to the right of Stalin. Reminicent of the proclivity of parts of the Right to call everything to the left of Ayn Rand "communism".

 

[jameson]

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.

There are some more comprehensive resources available, but they tend to come at a price. Anyway, I like the GGDC figures since at least they don't have a dog in this 'fight' and I suspect they are based on constant methodolody. Note that the referenced figures are not at all inconsistent: when GGDC says GDP in 2004 is $202bn in 1990 USD and the IMF says it's $164bn in 2006 dollars, assuming the numbers are consistent that translates to USD inflation of roughly 25% over the period - not at all unlikely over a 16 year period.

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

Ah, but the oil price hadn't tripled by 2004 yet ! By late 2003, oil was still at $25 a barrel.

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

That wasn't an argument, just a restatement of reaility. GDP figures represent the sum total of goods and services produced, and if the most important good produced triples in price, you''re going to have GDP growth regardless of what's done with the proceeds. Now obviously it would be better if Venezuela had a more diversified economy, but precious little has been done about getting one for decades.

 

[jameson]

Then why there is no such number in the INE website, only the one I pointed out earlier - 53%.

There is, it's in the PDF file on the first listing under indicadores sociales on the front page ( 'la pobreza' ). Here's the included image:

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?

Easy enough to explain if you look at the rise in oil prices starting in early '04 and the general economic recovery Zamecnik alluded to (economic growth was 18% that year). Anyway, revisit your earlier posts on INE's reliability and then try to argue that they sexed up the numbers again with a straight face.

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.

From what little research I've done, he's accused of committing war crimes.

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.

I'lll take your word for it.

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.

Exactly my point ! Uribe was re-elected for objectively making things better for Colombians, not as an instance of a wave of anti-Chavism sweeping the continent.

 

[The Last Conformist]

From what little research I've done, he's accused of committing war crimes.

I'm not claiming to know much about the Peruvian situation, but if European history is any guide accusations or convictions for warcrimes don't mean much if the electorate, or big chunks thereof, think they were part of a justified or necessary war.

 

[luiz]

Easy enough to explain if you look at the rise in oil prices starting in early '04 and the general economic recovery Zamecnik alluded to (economic growth was 18% that year). Anyway, revisit your earlier posts on INE's reliability and then try to argue that they sexed up the numbers again with a straight face.

I just reviseted my previous posts and not once I said that INE is reliable.
All that I said is that if a government-controlled agency criticises the government, I'll believe it. If North Korea's bureau of statistics claim that poverty is increasing, I'll believe them. I won't necessarily believe in other claims.

Once you take into consideration that Chávez got raging mad at them for releasing the earlier data and that the PDF where you got the graph is full of government propaganda, I don't thnik it is that unlikely that they sexed up the data. Latin American quasi-dictators have done that before, you know.

Also, what good is an economic growth of 18% (and are you sure about that? The CIA World Factbook and other sources I've read put it at 9%) after a fall of over 25%?

From what little research I've done, he's accused of committing war crimes.

He is accused of torturing severall senderistas, and that makes him popular. The Sendero used to open fire at entire villages during elections to keep the peasants from voting. They are not very loved.

Exactly my point ! Uribe was re-elected for objectively making things better for Colombians, not as an instance of a wave of anti-Chavism sweeping the continent.

Making things better and making sure that people didn't think that Chávez could do it better.

 

[jameson]

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

I just revisited my previous posts and not once I said that INE is reliable.

So, you only believe them when they conform to your argument, no ?

Look, I have no interest in defending Chávez at all, he can't be gone soon enough as far as I'm concerned. But I think a little intellectual rigor might be in order if we're arguing about what is really happening in
Venezuela.

 

[The Last Conformist]

So, you only believe them when they conform to your argument, no ?

He's saying that he believes them when what they say is unflattering for the interests controling them.

It's a basic principle of evaluating sources; if what they say is contrary to what they'd like to be true, they're more reliable than if what they say is conformant to their wishes.

 

[jameson]

Bah, so why did they only start doctoring the numbers by 2005 ? Chávez was president in 2002 too, when the poverty rate first started rising very strongly.
And why didn't they doctor them in 2003, when the poverty rate reached an appalling 54% ? One can presume that the interests controlling them had the same stake in underreporting the poverty rate in those years !

By the way, luiz claimed that poverty fell from 53 to 37% in a single semester as reported by the INE; looking at the chart posted before, it's actually 3 (during which time the oil price almost tripled).

 

[Oerdin]

A good question would be why the hell is Spain selling ships to this belligerant nutjob.

Because they have unemployed shipworkers who need jobs building ships? As for why Chavez wants so much money spent on military good I'd venture that he is a likely future strongman/dictator who knows strongmen/dictators live or die off of their military power. The guy has already modified the constitution twice to turn the courts and the legislature into rubber stamps and now he's cleared the way to making sure he never has to leave office.

 

[luiz]

Bah, so why did they only start doctoring the numbers by 2005 ? Chávez was president in 2002 too, when the poverty rate first started rising very strongly.
And why didn't they doctor them in 2003, when the poverty rate reached an appalling 54% ? One can presume that the interests controlling them had the same stake in underreporting the poverty rate in those years !

Well shortly after Lula was elected the brazilian institute of statistics published a study showing that, statistically speaking, there is no hunger in Brazil. During campaign Lula claimed that 40 million brazilians were starving, and he made fighting starvation his big banner. Of course the study produced discomfort, and Lula got pretty angry.
A few months afterwards, and after replacing a good part of the directors of the institute, they published a study that claimed that in fact millions of people had little food in Brazil.

By the way, luiz claimed that poverty fell from 53 to 37% in a single semester as reported by the INE; looking at the chart posted before, it's actually 3 (during which time the oil price almost tripled).

Well the other chart puts 53% on the first semester, since Zamenick said it was 6 months old that's what I figured.

By the way I'm still wainting for any source for your claim that Venezuela grew 18% in 2005, all sources I've seen state 9%. Which as I said earlier is nothing compared to the drops they had before.