Discussions on Venezuela are generally pretty entertaining in DU, as some of the sheep stray from the herd.
sabbat hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-16-09 12:19 AM
Original message
Reports from Venezuela from The Economist
Excellent articles, very insightful.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story...
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cf...
They basically say that he has done some good, crime is sky high in Venezuela and has gone up under Chavez's watch. Additionally, inflation is in the mid double digits right now, which is hurting the poor of the country, and that his reliance on oil to support the social programs is coming back to bite him in the ass with prices currently hovering around $40 per barrel. He relies on oil for 90% of the exports from Venezuela, much higher than before he took office.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5062561
w4rma (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-16-09 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bush stopped trade with Venezuela for no other reason than a "socialist" was in office.
And I would bet that many of those figures are higher, because they are actually being reported correctly, now.
I'll bet that many of those figures are higher, like crime, poverty and inflation; but the ones the DUmmie is referencing as being "correctly reported" will in reality be substantially underreported.
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-16-09 12:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. The anti-Chavez propaganda efforts of The Economist
may not be as transparent and crude as the New York Times or the Fred Hyatt WaPo, but be advised they are equally dishonest.
The Economist has been at the vanguard of the international effort to belittle the revolution in Venezuela.
Mother Jones describes the Economist's coverage of Venezuela as an effort to paint Chavez as "wacky utopian who sooner or later will run the Venezuelan economy into the ground." Their efforts in this regard have been ceaseless.
There may well be insights in these articles, just be aware of their extreme right/Chicago School agenda and always seek multiple sources.
Of course. Continue seeking sources until you find one that agrees with what you think is correct.
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-16-09 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. The editors of The Economist are British Thatcher-style conservatives
This means that they love "free" trade and everything else that the corporatists love. They once had a special issue on "free" trade in which they touted it as the cure for everything but the common cold, even though they admitted in various places that "free" trade would work only if a lot of impossible conditions being met, such as all nations having democratically elected governments that respect human rights.
They will naturally be down on anyone who is opposed to corporatist ideology.
So now Chavez is just "opposed to corporatist ideology" rather than being a dictatorial tyrant ?
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-16-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Not exactly. They're more libertarian than conservative.
They're generally in favour of gay rights and drug legalisation, from what I've seen. But certainly they're economically very right wing.
Gay rights and legal drugs. What a fine example of leftist prioritization.
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Tue Feb-17-09 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. The murder stat is all relative
we're talking about the developing world here, and many factors that really don't reflect anything at all about Chavez or the socialist revolution. If that's the best ammunition you or The Economist have to use against that movement then I'd say they don't have much to worry about.
And 50% inflation is bogus. It's closer to 30% (very very big difference) and, while crappy, that's historically low for VZ and for Latin America. It's a tad higher than last year, but lower than every other year since 1990.
see here: [delinked]
Propaganda is as propaganda does.
Keep spreading your right-wing garbage. Just don't expect everyone around here to swallow it.
The big difference between 30% and 50% inflation is the difference between starving today , or starving next week.
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-16-09 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Yes, seek multiple sources. Unfortunately, it seems
you denounce every source you dislike, from the Times to the Post to the Economist (being perhaps the three best examples of journalism available at American newsstands) as "propaganda," leaving as your example of unbiased reporting a magazine that prides itself on its strong liberal bias.
Oooh Zing !
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-16-09 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. You can always tell the economics dunces from responses in these threads
You don't have to love or hate Chavez to understand that he has an inflation problem and a finance problem,
each of which could be mitigated by a return to $125/bbl oil via inflows of hard currency. He can't
print his way out of inflation, because he already has it, and he can't rely on direct foreign investment
because he's scared it away or crowded it out.
But of course to many, we did this to Venezuela. Exactly how we did it involves a great deal of hand-waving
and conspiracy theories pasted over the enormous gaps in logic, but we did it. :eyes:
Funny how these economics dunces seem to rule the roost when it comes to threads *not* about Chavez.
