What about Venezuela, part II

I don't get it...

I can play a game of Civilization with 6 other people from every corner of the world in real time.

We can put people on the moon, have a missile fly through somebody's window, and even clone sheep!

BUT WE CAN"T MAKE A CAR THAT DOESN'T NEED USE OIL!!!

At least until the oil companies are ready for us to.:(

What would you say if the government decided to start drilling for oil across the street from you? It's B.S. that the planned drilling is just to "tide us over" until we figure out how to find an alternative.

It's all BS.

All of it.

And anyone who says otherwise should probably stop taking the partyline and wake up a smell the gasoline.

:(
 
Originally posted by NY Hoya
I don't see ANWR as a limitless source of oil, but combined with reserves in the Gulf and former soviet republics, could be large enough to offset some of the whims of the M.E.
This country can put a man on the moon in 10 years but can't find something better than oil in 30.

And I think you're wrong about the effect ANWR would have... there isn't enough oil there to make a big impact on the world markets; especially considering how much is in the former Soviet 'republics' (the Stan states :D ). THEY have infinately more potential, and more oil.

But even with all the extra oil, it will just lower the world prices, make the oil being drilled in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico less economically viable, and cause Americans to buy bigger cars again. I realize the importance of independence from those shieks and tyrants, but that will come with an alternative; not with more oil.

Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
I really wouldnt like to see the USA government getting involved there.
I agree 100% :D

Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
The problem is that we reached this situation because of the policies of the IMF, we had 8 cruel adjustments in the last two years ordered by the IMF and look what happened at the end.
The state reduced the salaries of the state workers twice and that only helped to worsen the recession because people had less money to spend.
I don't know much about Argentina or WHY the situation occurred there... so I'm going to ask some questions from someone on the ground.

Did the IMF policies CAUSE the problems; or did lack of implamentation cause the adjustments which caused the misery?
Basically, was the IMF perscribing bad policies and needs to review its diagnosis, or was Argentina slow to implament them and the IMF was 'punishing' the progress?
I know the IMF lost a lot of money (pittance compared to the people of Argentina), so I'm interested in where the mess originated.
 
Originally posted by Flatlander Fox
What would you say if the government decided to start drilling for oil across the street from you? It's B.S. that the planned drilling is just to "tide us over" until we figure out how to find an alternative.

It's all BS.

All of it.

And anyone who says otherwise should probably stop taking the partyline and wake up a smell the gasoline.

:(

If you can show me a poll stating that the majority of Alaskans are against the drilling, then by all means don't drill.

But if the government found a large oil reserve across the street from me, I'd be pretty excited. How big a check does each Alaskan get every year from oil royalties? I think it's about $2,000....

I agree, many of the people who use the "tide over" excuse don't mean it, that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate plan....
 
Hello, los Yanquis. Once I again, I have to be the canadian ass and point out that:

(a) drilling in ANWR doesn't just effect Alaska, it has environmental impacts in Canada as well. And since we Canadians have been awfully cooperative when it comes to environmental requests that help you more than us, putting it to a vote of Alaskans is not exactly a solution.

(b) and we have a better alternative to meet Yanqui needs with a bigger pool anyway, namely the Athabasca Tar Sands, which dwarfs reserves in ANWR by a gazillion barrels (that's an exact figure, btw).

Frankly, the ANWR push isn't about national interests or national reserves or national energy policy. It's about good lobbying. Trust me, I've seen this movie before.

R.IIII
 
Originally posted by Greadius
I don't know much about Argentina or WHY the situation occurred there... so I'm going to ask some questions from someone on the ground.

Did the IMF policies CAUSE the problems; or did lack of implamentation cause the adjustments which caused the misery?
Basically, was the IMF perscribing bad policies and needs to review its diagnosis, or was Argentina slow to implament them and the IMF was 'punishing' the progress?
I know the IMF lost a lot of money (pittance compared to the people of Argentina), so I'm interested in where the mess originated.


Menem (our president in the 90s) during the first half of his government (he was reelected) had a big deficit that was solved by selling a big state company per year.For example a year the argentinean airlines were sold, the next year the oil company.
In the last years of his second government there was nothing else to sell, but he kept spending so our extern debt increased.
But our economy was growing so there was no problem to pay the debt, but In 1998 Argentina starts its recession, with the crisis in Russia and South East Asia,.
The interventions of the IMF started in 1999 with the government of De La Rua, his government inherited a Deficit of 10.000 million from the Menem administration.
The imf said that they were going to help us but they told us that we needed to reduce our deficit.
Taxes were increased and salaries reduced (ordered by the imf) that worsened the recession and the tax collection was even lower than before.
The deficit could not be reduced.
For a while the economy seemed to recover but later our partner in the MERCOSUR Brazil devaluated their coin, Argentina with our currency tyed to the dolar simply couldnt compete against Brazil cheap currency and workers.

The IMF continued doing this, they were proscribing bad policies, but they are not the only people guilty.


Believe it or not the De la Rua government fall because the IMF refused to give us a credit that was previously accorded of 1600 millions.
 
I've come to believe that allowing the IMF to promote free enterprise is about as effective as having Italy as your ally in a World War.

R.III
 
Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
The imf said that they were going to help us but they told us that we needed to reduce our deficit.
Taxes were increased and salaries reduced (ordered by the imf) that worsened the recession and the tax collection was even lower than before.
The deficit could not be reduced.
Cut salaries? Someone beat them over the head... you fire employees to cut spending!

Menem had the privatization thing right but without cutting spending... there is a huge price to pay for running a debt too large. Republican tax cut advocates take note; our asses are going to be paying for that for decades.

Originally posted by Richard III
I've come to believe that allowing the IMF to promote free enterprise is about as effective as having Italy as your ally in a World War.
Cookie cutter policies...
Its a tough thing they've got to do though, because the economic policies are sound, but they're not going to work in every circumstance because there are too many peripheral factors. Economies don't operate in a vacuum.
 
Greadius, I take your point, but amongst other things, the IMF seems to rush to budget balances first instead of looking for a stable economy to balance the budget on. For example, they often advocate for big tax increases at the same time as they demand the big salary cuts, etc. The result is that purchasing power is sucked out of the domestic economy and, surprise, you have a recession, and then the government tries to wiggle and maneuver, and surprise...

I'm a debt hawk as far as Canadian fiscal policy is concerned, but then, we can afford to be. Repaying debt is one of the few crucial things a government has to do to keep its options open. But repayment of debt depends on cash flow. With some of these states, their cash flow is pretty tenous at best, and too dependent on carefully husbanded local consumption and regional single or sector-specific exports (e.g. Argentine beef, mmmm). I would far rather see the IMF concentrate on dealing with these countries the same way credit counsellors would in a real economy - namely, rebundle the debt and focus on sustained economic discipline instead of trying to change the crap overnight.

R.III
 
From the New York Times:

U.S. Cautioned Leader of Plot Against Chávez
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS

WASHINGTON, April 16 — The Bush administration, under criticism for its role in the ouster of President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, acknowledged today that a senior administration official was in contact with Mr. Chávez's successor on the very day he took over.

Otto J. Reich, assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs, phoned the incoming president, Pedro Carmona Estanga, to plead with him not to dissolve the National Assembly on the grounds it would be "a stupid thing to do," and provoke an outcry, a State Department official said.

Administration officials cited the call as evidence that they had sought to uphold democratic processes in Venezuela, but the disclosure raised questions as to whether Mr. Reich or other officials were stage-managing the takeover by Mr. Carmona, one of the leaders of the military and business coalition that ousted the president.

"In our opinion, he needed to work with them," said the State Department official, referring to Mr. Carmona and the Assembly.

Mr. Carmona ignored Mr. Reich's appeal and shut down the Assembly and the Supreme Court, igniting a popular backlash that restored Mr. Chávez as president.

Administration officials vigorously denied today that they had encouraged plotters or had any advance knowledge of plans to oust Mr. Chávez, a populist leader whose leftist policies have long antagonized the United States.

But Mr. Reich's advice to Mr. Carmona on the very day that military officers took Mr. Chávez into custody at an army base suggests an early and urgent administration interest in seeing Mr. Carmona succeed and maintain the appearance of democratic continuity. It was not clear what time Mr. Reich placed his call on Friday.

Administration officials notified members of Congress on Friday that Mr. Chávez had resigned. The report was erroneous, and he insists that he never relinquished his office. The United States did not condemn the action against Mr. Chávez, a democratically elected leader, until Saturday evening after angry protesters forced Mr. Carmona to resign.

Asked to explain the discrepancy, administration officials have said they were acting on the best information they had during a chaotic situation.

"Those events were not anticipated," Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said today. "And once those events took place, the United States did move to condemn it."

Mr. Carmona, who heads Venezuela's largest business association, was one of numerous critics of Mr. Chavez to call on administration officials in recent weeks. Officials from the White House, State Department and Pentagon, among others, were hosts to a stream of Chávez opponents, some of them seeking help in removing him from office.

Administration officials insisted today that, despite their disdain for Mr. Chávez, they categorically ruled out an ouster during their conversations with his opponents. But American officials did discuss replacing Mr. Chávez through a referendum or by impeachment, and did not disguise their eagerness to see him gone, officials acknowledged.

"The United States policy is to support democracy and democratic solutions to any type of problems in nations around the world," Mr. Fleischer said. He added, "We explicitly told opposition leaders that the United States would not support a coup."

When asked whether the administration had advance knowledge of Mr. Chávez's overthrow, Mr. Fleischer said American diplomats and news media had been warning of the possibility of violence for several months.

"I think you have to be careful about advance knowledge of a specific act and general talk of unease in a nation like Venezuela, that has been marked by a very difficult internal democratic system," Mr. Fleischer said.

Officials said they had been in touch with numerous critics of Mr. Chávez in recent months, as well as with some of his supporters.

Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon spokeswoman, said the chief of the Venezuelan military high command, Gen. Lucas Romero Rincón, met recently with Rogelio Pardo-Maurer, a Pentagon official responsible for Latin America. She did not provide details of the meeting, or say whether intelligence was shared.

Mr. Pardo-Maurer, who served for three years as the chief of staff to the representative of the Nicaraguan rebels known as contras during the 1980's, "made it very, very clear that the U.S. intent was to support democracy, human rights, that we in no way would support any coups or unconstitutional activity," Ms. Clarke said.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats voiced concern that the administration meetings with anti-Chávez leaders might undercut Washington's credibility as the region's main advocate for democracy.

"I'm very concerned about what message it sends about our support for democracy there and around the world," said Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic majority leader. "I think that we've got to be supportive of democratic principles even when they choose to elect people we don't like."

In some ways, the back-and-forth between administration officials and Democrats recalled the suspicion and bitter policy battles over Central America and Cuba during the Reagan administration. The administration's foreign policy team is dominated by anti-Castro hard-liners, who fought those policy battles, and they are running afoul of familiar antagonists including Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat who has long specialized in Latin American affairs.

Mr. Dodd expressed dismay that the administration had been slow to criticize Mr. Chávez's ouster. Administration officials erroneously reported on Friday that Mr. Chávez had resigned and said his antidemocratic behavior was responsible for his undoing. Only after Mr. Chávez had been restored on Saturday did the administration support a resolution at the Organization of American States condemning the interruption of democratic rule.

"While all the details of the attempted coup in Venezuela are not yet known, what is clear is that the vast majority of governments in the hemisphere lived up to their responsibilities under the Inter-American Democratic Charter, and denounced the unconstitutional efforts to take power from a government which had been freely elected," Mr. Dodd said.

Mr. Reich, who is a Cuban exile, warned Congressional aides that there was more at stake in Venezuela than the success or failure of Mr. Chávez. American officials accuse Mr. Chávez of meddling with the historically independent state oil company, providing haven to Colombian guerrillas and bailing out Cuba with preferential rates on oil.

In the closed door briefing, Mr. Reich said the administration had received reports that "foreign paramilitary forces" — suspected to be Cubans — were involved in the bloody suppression of anti-Chávez demonstrators, in which at least 14 people were killed, a Congressional official said today.

Mr. Reich, who declined to be interviewed today, offered no evidence for his assertion, the official said.
 
Back
Top Bottom