Chavez is loony, looney, looney.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
True, I looked for poverty info. OK, the economy is growing and everyone is worse off. Viva la revolution.

So what we have left from the OP is that poverty increased from 67% to 71% under Chavez.

Since the poor are Chavez' political base, it only makes since he would want to make more of them.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin


granted the country is corrupt. The oil is all state owned and it is illegal for foreigners or private citizens to own oil production facilities. With controls on capital lows combined with Chavez's own nationalizing of several large businesses in 200 & 2001 (lbusinesses which were owned by vocal anti-Chavez people) it will be hard to effectively diversify the economy.

If you will bother to look at the source of economic data - the CBoV - you will see that oil only accounted for less than 9% of the growth. Most of the Growth was from contruction.

edit: I should have said that 8% growth is because of oil production.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Because the bbc article is 2 years old. The economy didn't start to recover until this year. Come on Oerdin.

Did you even bother to look at the PDF file from 2004? Everyone else has get with the program kid.

[laurentius]

These are the figures I saw

The Economist country profile: Venezuela
2000 2001 2002 2003

GDP per head ($ at PPP) 5,948 6,161 5,610 5,100
GDP (% real change pa) 3.24 2.79 -8.88 - 9.20
Government consumption (% of GDP) 7.23 8.59 8.06 8.90
Budget balance (% of GDP) -1.65 -4.41 -4.80 -5.80
Consumer prices (% change pa; av) 16.21 12.53 22.43 31.10
Public debt (% of GDP)* 27.01 30.41 38.35 38.60
Labour costs per hour (USD) 3.22 3.44 2.45 2.11
Recorded unemployment (%)** 13.90 13.30 15.90 21.00
Current-account balance/GDP 9.98 1.63 7.80 11.30
Foreign-exchange reserves (mUS$) 13,089 9,239 8,487 16,035

So it seems that Oerdins figure of -9.2 % real GDP change is correct but from 2003. I dont think that is just because some of the mistakes Chavez has made, its got much more complex reasons.

Now Chavez or his team might not be your ideal people in charge of national economy but many of Venezuelas problems are not self inflicted. For a country that has had 1 coup attempt, 1 major natural disaster(mudslide), couple of major strikes, deep social and political divisions with each side afraid of another. It would be a miracle if Venezuelas economics hadent took a blow. Also I dont think looking at conventional economic data in this case isnt very constructive. Chavez is using very unconventional means to redistrubute wealth to the more poor people. He has hundreds of social projects going on in the slums that so far show only as an expense in the budget. The projects include medical assistance and training of local doctors by cubans, free "evening schools" for illiterate children as well as adults, study circles etc. Then theres the land reform. We will see hoe it turns out.

I find it encouraging and fascianating that a latin america leader tries something completely new and radical to help his own people. This time its not done with stalinist or right-wing doctrines but in quite pragmatic way. I'm hopeful that these measures help to educate the Venezuelan people and give them a chance to move to the next level in life. The investors neither in Venezuela or abroad are not seeing this opportunity though. The private media and power elite in many coutries are afraid by the unpredictable stunts Chavez does every once a while. Because of that and the fact that he is Castros friend gives him enormous amounts of negative publicity. Much of it is strongly biased against him.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So what we have left from the OP is that poverty increased from 67% to 71% under Chavez.

Since the poor are Chavez' political base, it only makes since he would want to make more of them.

I believe the 1998 poverty rate figure was 47% and Chavez came to power in 1999.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Like you haven't done that before.

No. Only Trotsky's words.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I believe that is the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

Actually, your points before were mainly about the growth of the economy, not how it's distributed.

As I said, I would question the poverty figures, but have no trouble believing inequilty and poverty has increased. But if Chavez's main problem is a lack of wealth distribution, that's not a particularly damning account of his policies.

[Dinner]

If one wants to see a good leftist president then they just have to look at Brazil's Lula to see a guy who restructures government spending to help the poor but who kieeps a close eye on economics to make sure the economy is run in a sound and conservative manner. He's probably the best leader in Latin America today.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I believe the 1998 poverty rate figure was 47% and Chavez came to power in 1999.

We've already dispensed with that number as inaccurate.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I believe the 1998 poverty rate figure was 47% and Chavez came to power in 1999.

I believe you've missed my post regarding the validity of that data. When you have two poverty stats measured in the same way that show this disparity, it will have some credibility.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


We've already dispensed with that number as inaccurate.

Not according to the CIA. See under economy.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ve.html#Econ

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If one wants to see a good leftist president then they just have to look at Brazil's Lula

You mean a neo-liberal in leftist clothing?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Did you even bother to look at the PDF file from 2004? Everyone else has get with the program kid.

Did you read it? Those figures are from 2003. You have still not provided any stats for poverty to cover the period when the economy started to recover.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Drogue

Have you read any of the posts where we've explained how? It's very easy - it's called an unequal distribution of wealth. The poor get very little, the rich get a lot. The total amount is higher, but the amount given to the poor is lower.

If the amount given to the poor is less then how do you reconcil Kid & Sava's claim that Chavez is spending more then ever on the poor? That would mean all the increases (and then some) that Chavez has made in assistance to the poor has be lost in other areas.

That doesn't sound like a good way to help the poor.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kidicious

Did you read it? Those figures are from 2003. You have still not provided any stats for poverty to cover the period when the economy started to recover.

READ THE TITLE ON THE FIRST PAGE! ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN 2004!!! It was written three months ago.