Matt, it seems the only reason you start these Chavez threads is to be a gadfly to those of us who lean a bit towards socialism on this site. And the fact is Chavez might end up being a disaster, but so far all i see in Venezuela is a healthy expression of democracy. Yes he is socialist, yes he is full of anti-Bush rhetoric (who isn't), and yes he is charismatic to a fault. But so far he has the overwhelming support of his people, and until that changes, i think it is worth taking an honest look at Venezuela and the bolivarian revolution and seeing what happens. He does not represent a security threat to the US, or anybody else. Nationalizing an electric utility company is not stealing, it has happened in Canada in the past, with loans from american banks. Until Chavez refuses to step down after an election, and until their is popular dissent against his programs, i simply see no harm in what he is doing. It threatens a few rich americans and europeans who want to control SA resources.... big fucking deal. I don't know why you would care.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

They are making big bucks. Besides that obvious fact. Why should a basic good (electricity, water, telephone communications) be in the hands of a private company? in the case of venezuela, the question also deals with national security at the highest level after the 2002 coup.

__________________
happy days are here again!

Because the private company built the distribution and generation systems.

Why should all that expensive equipment be given to the government for free?

As for the coup, Hugo was part of a coup attempt - it is completely hypocritical for him to complain about one.

But if you want to take the "national security" route, why should the US not take the same approach to Citgo?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Wow, a post on the topic.

Why should I care? Because the property of an American company is about to be taken without compensation. Hugo isn't talking about buying the infrastructure in question, he's talking about seizing it (as he has done with other "nationalized" industries in Venezuela).

In fairness, why shouldn't the US seize assets from Citgo of comparable fair market value and given them to AES as compensation for the property Venezuela is planning to seize?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Matt, do you really want the US government to go into the business of seizing property?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

No - I am opposed to any government doing it.

However, if the government of Venezuela (aka Hugo the dictator) engages in the outright theft of AES' assets there, should they not be entitled to compensation?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Ahem...

Jan. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuela will offer compensation to the oil, power and telephone companies that may lose assets in President Hugo Chavez's nationalization plans, the head of the National Assembly Finance Committee said.

``Confiscation, expropriation are banned words in our dictionary,'' Ricardo Sanguino, the committee's chairman, said in a telephone interview. ``We will be tough but fair negotiators. There are legal mechanisms in the Constitution that give support to our plan.''

Bloomberg.com: Latin America

This is not stealing.

Matt, Chavez has enacted a land transfer program, mainly targeting the agricultural land of extremely wealthy people who lived on it without working it. He did this in order to create subsistence farms for poor people. So far this has seen a dramatic decrease in infant mortality, and a rise in the life expectancy as well as in increase in the literacy rate. A few capitalists suffered, just as socialists suffer in a capitalist society.

If you are going to criticize Chavez why dont you criticize socialism from an academic point of view. There is many economic principles that he is violating quite bluntly, and most economists shudder when they think of Chavez... these are legitimate grounds to criticize him on i think. But yet it has no effect on my life or yours, so i am content to view the results and wish them well.

One thing is hard to deny though, he has done more for poor people in Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia than any capitalist or privatized reforms or institutions have ever done. We will see how this plays out in the long term.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

If he's paying fair value, then it is not a problem.

However, his consolidation of power (removing term limits, legislation by fiat) is still a serious issue.

Also, I am amazed how many people claim Hugo is so good for the poor, and yet excuse the over a billion dollars he pissed away trying for the UNSC seat - which would have done nothing for the poor even if he had gotten in.

What might that billion dollars have done for the poor? We'll never know - Hugo spent it on his ego instead.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Yes, that is what concerns me most.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

I see no reason to assume they would not, but that will come later.
It has the potential to be.
But Matt, most of that money went to aid the poor in his region... yes it was in order to help build support for a seat, but the money was in the form of aid, and he has not asked for it back. Sure he has a big ego, but what politician doesn't?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I guess you edited to add this?

Anyway. I wouldn't call it pissed away. He gave it in aid. The US gives TONS of money in aid every year.

Maybe it would have been better for the Venezuelan poor, but he was spreading his wealth. Maybe not a SMART thing, in your book, but certainly charitable.

And yes, it was a internationally political move... but hey, what isn't?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

I can't remember Matt, but did you ever have a problem with the EAU government controlled company that wanted to do our port security?

It's interesting to see you get all worked up about the path you claim Chavez is headed down there when most of our allies have already been there for decades.

If you boycott Chavez, why not the EAU and Saudi Arabia as well?

Actually, I was one of the very few people here who argued that the same rules needed to apply to all foreign investments. Sadly, racism ruled the day.

Chavez is openly hostile to the US. The UAE isn't. In truth, the UAE are the ones who discovered the covert nuclear smuggling from Pakistan.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Sadly, you're a hypocrite. Still with the racism bit, huh? Throw in all the tangents you want, you're still a hypocrite against a man that has done nothing to harm the United States and has never threatened to do anything of the sort.


Chavez is not openly hostile to the U.S. at all. He provided cheap oil for Americans having to deal with a harsh winter. He is openly critical of Bush's actions as any other intellectual person would do.

You are outright lying about Chavez and I'm sick of the bullshit. Chavez is NOT openly hostile to the U.S. That is a complete lie.

Feel free not to read and reply to my posts, if you are so sick of it. I couldn't care less if you ever respond to my posts again, dude.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum