Politics | Current Events | Stuff

Trying to make sense of things by looking at causes and understanding their effects. Using science to discern what's real and relationships to determine what's of value. Curious about everything. www.samanthaclemens.com

Wannabe dictators and fooling some of the people some of the time….

Chavez didn’t get his way this time – his desire to be president for life via constitutional changes was narrowly defeated, 51% to 49%.  Amazingly close, isn’t?  But, if it was so close, why would Chavez accept the defeat? 

I hear from those in the know that many would-be ‘no’ voters stayed home for fear of being identified as ‘opposition.’  Others who say they actually voted yes for the same reason.  Others who saw red-shirted people at the doors of people ‘encouraging’ them to vote.  Feelings of intimidation, fear of reprisals for opposing the changes.  And still, many others dared to vote no.

In their own words:

“Now, after the VERY CLOSE defeat of the referendum, we need to see if C … uses this time to expose dissenters in the ranks who in light of the results, will shed some of their fear and reveal themselves.

Fear – Yesterday, in the small group of people I spoke with: None of D’s family voted out of fear that they would be identified. D would have, but is registered in CUM and could not get here. In my house, my downstairs neighbor who works in a school said that most of her compañeros de trabajo had said they would vote SI, against their wills, out of fear of being identified as dissenters. My neighbor in the apartment next door, another profesora did not vote out of fear for her job and family.

Does it get any more corrupt than that?

Taking into account all the people who either voted SI against their will or abstained out of fear, I find the defeat of the Reforma even more remarkable. We know the Chavistas got their people out to vote, paid, threatened, etc., and yesterday I saw large, and to me intimidating, groups of red clad people at front doors exhorting the inhabitants to vote. The NO voters went of their own wills, in spite of their fears, and in spite of threats. Hopefully these results will begin to embolden dissenters to stand up for their beliefs and be counted, although the today’s taskmaster is the same as yesterday’s….”

So, is Chavez a true democrat, respecting the will of the people?  Is he using this as an opportunity to identify his opponents and will he use the remaining years of his term to get rid of them? 

What is so sad and unnecessary about this situation is that Chevez gains his power from the poorest of the poor who are getting so little from him – a few get housing, a few more get a little food – but the overall economy is worse than before (there are rampant food shortages, unemployment is worse).  In other words, Chavez is sharing more of a shrinking pie.  Had the prior governments and the wealthy in Venezuela addressed the needs of the poorest, done something to develop a middle class and therefore a path to a decent life for the vast majority of the population, they would still be able to live in their country and the world would not be confronted with this loud-mouth bully who is more concerned with sticking his finger in the eye of the western world than he is developing his own country.

And Venezuela is not the only country faced with these issues.  Mexico has similar social stratifications – a small super wealthy elite with a vast majority of people living hand to mouth.  Mexico has dealt with this situation by exporting people to the US to work.  I have not problem with the free flow of labor – and trying to stop people from moving where the jobs and opportunities are is a short-term strategy.  However, I believe that we should hold the power-brokers of those countries responsible for the economic conditions in their countries that is powering immigration. 

What were the conditions that created Chavez?  Why don’t Mexicans want to stay in Mexico?  And what are the leaders (political, economic, and social) doing about it?

To many of them are living and working in our country; enjoying the fruits of a country and society that have invested in it’s own people, infrastructure, and education; and ignoring the need to do the same in their own countries.  There are wealthy Mexican women and children living in Houston and other southern US cities while their husbands are working in Mexico.  In other words, they don’t want to live in their own country, so they earn their money in Mexico, pay very low taxes in Mexico, do not contribute to US society, yet enjoy life here.  Oh, yes, it’s legal.  But, it’s wrong and I think we should hold them to account.

 


Posted by Sam on Dec 04 2007 under Economics - International, Government, Immigration, Politics




8 Responses to “Wannabe dictators and fooling some of the people some of the time….”

  1. JimFarm Says:
    December 16th, 2007 at 1:25 pm

    As I recall the United States at one time did not have constitutionally imposed term limits on its presidents, and indeed we actually had one president who was elected to the White House four times and who died in office at the beginning of his fourth term (which certainly made him a “president for life). However, I don’t think that the United States was any the worse for having Franklin Delano Roosevelt elected four times, although the GOP in a frenzy of posthumous revenge, pushed through a constitutional ammendment in 1951 imposing term limits on US presidents. Those of us who have at least a passing familiarity with US political history might recall that FDR in his day faced many of the same criticisms that Chavez does in our day in Venezuela. Like Chavez, FDR was taken to task for concentrating power into his own hands. He increased the power of the executive branch at the expense of Congress, and when the Supreme Court began declare much of the New Deal legislation to be unconstitutional, FDR, unsuccessfully, attempted to pack the Supreme Court. And the Democratic Party of his day, especially the big city political machines were not known for being overly concerned about the niceties involved when it came to getting out their voters on election day. President Roosevelt did not seem overly concerned about such niceties either.

    Anyone familiar with the political history of the US during the 1930s, would, I think, have some understanding as to why FDR should have been so concerned with concentrating power in the hands of the executive. That was because, he perceived, correctly, that the other branches of government to be under the control of wealthy special interests that were very much concerned with blocking necessary economic and social reforms, just as today in a country like the Venezuela, the head of state there finds in himself in a not dissimilar situation.

    Although, Chavez has been widely condemned in the US as being “undemocratic.” The fact is, he has accepted the outcome of the referendum. Will he try again? Most likely, although he will undoubtedly follow a different tac next time but that is all a part of the political game.

  2. Sam Says:
    December 18th, 2007 at 9:33 am

    While it is true that Chavez accepted the outcome of the referendum, it is also true that most people were surprised that he did. The most telling aspect of what is happening in Venezuela is that I have asked people who have expressed reservations about the voting process and Chavez’ policies to talk about it on the radio, and they all decline because they are afraid of the repercussions. So, who is controlling societal institutions?

    I would love to have a radio segment presenting both points of view. The problem is, no one who opposes Chavez dares speak their mind on the air.

    And that, in my mind, says it all.

  3. JimFarm Says:
    December 18th, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    Sam wrote:

    “What is so sad and unnecessary about this situation is that Chevez gains his power from the poorest of the poor who are getting so little from him – a few get housing, a few more get a little food – but the overall economy is worse than before (there are rampant food shortages, unemployment is worse). In other words, Chavez is sharing more of a shrinking pie. Had the prior governments and the wealthy in Venezuela addressed the needs of the poorest, done something to develop a middle class and therefore a path to a decent life for the vast majority of the population, they would still be able to live in their country and the world would not be confronted with this loud-mouth bully who is more concerned with sticking his finger in the eye of the western world than he is developing his own country.”

    On the other hand the CIA World Factbook website (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html#Econ) tells us that:

    “Economy – overview:
    Definition Field Listing
    Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for roughly 90% of export earnings, more than 50% of the federal budget revenues, and around 30% of GDP. Tax collection – Venezuela’s primary source of non-oil revenue – is expected to surpass $23 billion in 2006, exceeding the yearend collection goal by more than 20%. A nationwide strike between December 2002 and February 2003 had far-reaching economic consequences – real GDP declined by around 9% in 2002 and 8% in 2003 – but economic output since then has recovered strongly. Fueled by higher oil prices, record government spending helped to boost GDP growth in 2004 and 2005 to approximately 18% and 11%, respectively. Economic growth in 2006 reached about 9%. This spending, combined with recent minimum wage hikes and improved access to domestic credit, has fueled a consumption boom – car sales in 2006 increased by around 70% – but has come at the cost of higher inflation. Despite government attempts to withdraw liquidity from the economy, Venezuela’s money supply set a record in June 2006, approximately 70% higher than the previous year. Imports have also jumped significantly.”

    So who am I to believe? The source that Sam refers to claims “the overall economy is worse than before (there are rampant food shortages, unemployment is worse).”
    While the CIA website tells us that there is a consumption boom going on in Venezuela.

  4. Sam Says:
    December 19th, 2007 at 8:58 am

    It is indeed difficult to see what is going on within a country’s economy and what impact the government has on it. My view is shaped by the following:

    1) with oil prices going up, you would expect the money supply to increase substantially

    2) minimum wage was increased which presumably has a ripple effect throughout the economy – people have more money in their pockets.

    2) they spend this extra money which may have an inflationary effect – if there is more to buy in response to this extra spending, prices may remain stable, but if the supply of goods and services is stable, prices go up in response to the increased demand.

    3) in fact, prices are not only going up substantially, there are reports of widespread shortages of key consumer goods, including food: http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,2210473,00.html

    4) companies which had located their Latin America headquarters in Caracas, due to the educated population, geographic location (half-way between US and Sao Paulo/Rio/Buenos Aires) has pulled out to protect their assets – this has moved jobs and significant economic activity to other Latin American countries, most notably Costa Rica, Panama and Argentina

    5) Educated Venezuelans have left because they fear their future is too much at risk to remain in the country.

    6) I asked people who will criticize Chavez in private to do so publically on the radio so that people can hear that side of the debate without it being considered American right-wing rhetoric based on power-politics. I have yet been unable to find someone to do so because their fear there would e political, economic and physical consequences.

    All too often Latin American countries have ended up with ‘strongman’ leaders in response to right-wing dictatorships run and/or controlled by elites who did nothing to build up a middle class and a path out of poverty. However, just because a leader is saying he is ‘a man of the people’ doesn’t mean that he actually has their best interests at heart. It is entirely possible that Chavez is using their votes as the mechanism to gain power and has chosen this path because it is so easy – so little has been done for the poorest sectors of the Venezuelan population that you can buy their loyalty for almost nothing.

    For the wealthy elites of other Latin American countries, it is important to take note – if you do not develop your countries, you significantly increase the likelihood of a Chavez-style government. For Americans, it is important that we employ the use of peer pressure on these wealthy elites, many of whom live in or travel to the US. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/realestate/16nati.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

  5. JimFarm Says:
    December 19th, 2007 at 9:37 pm

    The reader might wish to take note as how Sam’s critique of Chavez’s economic policies have changed in the course of this discussion. In the first post, Sam complained that Chavez was doing little for the Venezuelan poor. Apparently, he was not making a serious effort at redistributing Venezuela’s oil revenues to his country’s neediest people. But now in the her last post, we discover that Chavez has been doing all too much income redistribution, to the point that the increase in aggregate purchasing power has been leading to inflation and shortages of goods in the marketplace! It would seem that Chavez is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.

    Now most of the other things that Sam reports concerning what is going in the Venezuelan economy seem accurate and match reports from those who are sympathetic towards his regime as well as those who oppose him. The question that is raised what our attitude towards this should be, and more importantly what policies should Chavez’s government should follow in response to these problems. I think some insight can be gained from a recent post on a discusion list by retired economics professor Michael A. Lebowitz who in recent years been living and teaching in Venezuela. His post strikes me as being particularly apropos to this discussion since it summarizes the dilemmas that almost every serious egalitarian reformer (not just Chavez) runs into sooner or later

    ———————————
    Lebowitz writes:

    Apropos the problem of shortages in Venezuela, here is a section from Ch. 2 (Ideology and Economic Development) of my BUILD IT NOW:

    All other things equal, a government cannot encroach upon capital without negative-sum results. This has always been the wisdom of conservative economists. Yet, it is essential to understand that the conclusions of the neoclassical economists are embedded in their assumptions­ and particularly relevant here is the assumption that all other things are equal. …
    Thus, we need to be aware of the limits of the conservative economist’s logic. However, that does not at all mean that these arguments can be ignored! Because what the conservative economist does quite well is indicate what capital will do in response to particular measures. It is an economics of capital. And, nothing is more naive than to assume that you can undertake certain measures of economic policy without a response from capital; nothing is more certain to backfire than introducing measures that serve people’s
    needs without anticipating capital’s response.

    Those who do not respect the conservative economist’s logic, which is the logic of capital, and incorporate it into their strategy are doomed to constant surprises and disappointments. Understanding the responses of capital means that a capital strike can be an opportunity rather than a crisis. If you reject dependence upon capital, the logic of capital can be revealed clearly as contrary to the needs and interests of people. When capital goes on strike, there are two choices, give in or move in.

    Michael A. Lebowitz
    Professor Emeritus
    Economics Department
    Simon Fraser University
    Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

    Director, Programme in ‘Transformative Practice and Human Development’
    Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H.
    Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar
    Caracas, Venezuela
    fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231
    http//:centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve
    —————————————-

  6. Sam Says:
    December 20th, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    Jim says: “In the first post, Sam complained that Chavez was doing little for the Venezuelan poor. Apparently, he was not making a serious effort at redistributing Venezuela’s oil revenues to his country’s neediest people. But now in the her last post, we discover that Chavez has been doing all too much income redistribution, to the point that the increase in aggregate purchasing power has been leading to inflation and shortages of goods in the marketplace! It would seem that Chavez is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.”

    A small point, but I didn’t say that Chavez was doing too much income redistribution. I said he’s raised minimum wage which has resulted in corresponding inflation, which is what happens when people have more money, but the supply of goods and services does not increase. The net result is that the actual purchasing power of the people you are trying to help erodes.

    So why has the supply of goods and services not increased? I know that many companies have significantly reduced their presence in Venezuela due to the fear of government nationalizations of their assets.

    In other words, Chavez has not been effective in increasing the standard of living of the people he says he intends to help.

    So there are two issues: 1) Chavez’ intentions, and 2) whether he is effective.

    Jim seems to believe that Chavez’ intentions are truly for the good of the people. I am more skeptical, but time will tell.

    In the meantime, I welcome anyone who opposes Chavez who lives in Venezuela to speak about it on the radio. If anyone volunteers, I will of course look for someone who supports Chavez to present that point of view as well.

    Somehow I think it will be much easier to find a supporter than a member of the opposition.

  7. JimFarm Says:
    December 20th, 2007 at 8:17 pm

    Sam writes:

    “A small point, but I didn’t say that Chavez was doing too much income redistribution. I said he’s raised minimum wage which has resulted in corresponding inflation, which is what happens when people have more money, but the supply of goods and services does not increase. The net result is that the actual purchasing power of the people you are trying to help erodes.”

    Well even the CIA website admits that there has been a consumption boom going on in Venezuela. Somebody must buying up those goods. In fact much of this consumption boom has been fueled by the increased purchasing power of the poorer segments of Venezuelan society. That to my mind would indicate that some degree of income redistribution has taken place in Venezuela. That is still true even taking rising inflation into account.

    At this point I would suggest reading something like “The Venezuelan Economy in the Chávez Years”(www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2007_07.pdf ). As the authors point out, rising inflation is one of the major challenges facing the Chavez regime, but they seem pretty confident that his government has the necessary policy tools for dealing with it.

    It also might be useful if you addressed some of the points in the short piece that I posted from Michael Lebowitz, which is that a capital strike such as we are seeing in Venezuela can actually present egalitarian reformers with an opportunity to experiment with alternative forms of economic organization. Lebowitz developed this point at somewhat greater length in his article, “Ideology and Economic Development,” which appeared in Monthly Review (May 2004), see:
    http://www.monthlyreview.org/0504lebowitz.htm
    His points in that article are, I think, directly relevant to the problems facing the Chavez regime.

    As for the problems that you have been having in finding people who would be willing to go on your radio show to criticize Chavez, I say give it time. While Chavez has long been in the gun sights of the Bush Administration, he has not been at the top of their list. They are still tied up with Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are still busy cooking up a good (or rather not so good) excuse for attacking Iran. Have patience! Chavez may still get his turn, although there are still people ahead of him in line. However, if and when the day comes that the Bushies decide that the Chavez regime must be eliminated, I assure you that on that day, you will have no problem finding people willing to come on your show to attack every aspect of Chavez and his regime. In fact you will have to beat them off with a stick to keep from getting overwhelmed. When the propaganda machine of the US government gears up, they pull out all the stops. Have you forgotten the incessant propaganda campaigns that preceded both Iraq wars? When Chavez’s turn comes, he will be proclaimed by no less than the president of the United States, to be Latin America’s very own Hitler. He will be found to be worse and more dangerous than Castro. You haven’t seen anything yet. Have patience!

  8. Sam Says:
    December 20th, 2007 at 9:56 pm

    I will have a look at the articles that you reference, but it will likely be after the holidays.

    With regard to people willing to go on the radio to criticize Chavez – of course Bush people will do so. That is not who I am talking about. I am referring to Venezuelans who voted against the constitutional changes that Chavez sought that would have given him unprecedented power. The word that I am getting is that ordinary people are afraid to speak out. If that is not the case, I want to hear about it. Not from Bushies. Not from Chavistas. From ordinary Venezuelans who voted ‘No’.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.