Hugo Chavez Loves Free Speech...

Yes I have.

He said it in the context of what he perceives to be media bias against him in the West. Still inexcusable. Idi Amin, I mean come on. The Ugandan press was pissed!

So, will you share your search secret?

Even after you provided the document it was still tricky to find independently. I looked at your google search and it seems you searched for a bunch of phrases that were in the doc, yes? How did you find these?

Are you a fluent Spanish speaker?
 
Tailgater said:
Agriculture is about 3% of GDP. They import most food. Maybe that's why it's not important.

ETA: and you're comparing a country with 7 times the GDP to one that relies on agriculture for almost half of it's economy. Staggering difference.
Click to expand...

Agriculture as a share of GDP has always been fairly low in Venezuela, by Latin American standards (apparently)
http://countrystudies.us/venezuela/25.htm

But agriculture as a share of GDP is a poor choice of denominator to evaluate the impact of a drought. Venezuela does import about 60% of the food it consumes (a figure that went up dramatically after Chavez started using oil revenues to subsidize food imports for the poor) but this means that something like 30-40% of its food needs are still met domestically. Combine the worst drought in 50 years with shutting off imports from Colombia because of geopolitical factors (and probably a poor calculation by Hugo) and you've got food supply problems.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
I looked at your google search and it seems you searched for a bunch of phrases that were in the doc, yes? How did you find these?

Are you a fluent Spanish speaker?
Click to expand...

I know a little but mostly I tried to find the original phrases he said, and cross-referenced those with spanish blogs to find at what event and what date he said it.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Agriculture as a share of GDP has always been fairly low in Venezuela, by Latin American standards (apparently)
http://countrystudies.us/venezuela/25.htm

But agriculture as a share of GDP is a poor choice of denominator to evaluate the impact of a drought. Venezuela does import about 60% of the food it consumes (a figure that went up dramatically after Chavez started using oil revenues to subsidize food imports for the poor) but this means that something like 30-40% of its food needs are still met domestically. Combine the worst drought in 50 years with shutting off imports from Colombia because of geopolitical factors (and probably a poor calculation by Hugo) and you've got food supply problems.
Click to expand...

Yes, odd that they use 1/4 of land for 3-4% AND 10% labor. I didn't see the 60%, but all sites I've visited estimate 2/3 thirds and up, whch would be 66% or more. Regardless, a food shortage in Veneuela should be minor compared to Guatemala when making the drought comparison. Maybe more variables should be researched if I have time.
 
Tailgater said:
Yes, odd that they use 1/4 of land for 3-4% AND 10% labor.
Click to expand...

Yes you're right 66%.

This ratio (3-4% GDP and 10% of labour) is not that odd, especially when you consider Venezuela's oil sector growth. I think you're implying low labour productivity in the sector. This is fair, but even in Canada agriculture has lower labour productivity than the economy as a whole
http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1205769582306&lang=eng

1.3% of GDP, 1.9% of labour force.

The Venezuelan numbers are worse, evidently, but that's to be expected.

Comparing agriculture productivity is also complicated by things like the fertility of the land, I would imagine.
 
Apropos, good read:

Comparing Democratic Institutions in Venezuela and Canada
Steve Caines, March 18th 2010

Recent remarks by Canadian State of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Kent with regard to the media and “shrinking democratic space” in Venezuela [1] are but a few of a number of disapproving comments expressed by the Canadian government over events in the country in the past few years. But given that the remarks came during a three month prorogation of the Canadian Parliament, it was only to be expected that criticisms would arise over whether the government's comments actually stem from genuine concerns over democracy [2]. Regardless of what full motivations may be behind Kent's comments, the Canadian government's ongoing sweeping claims of faltering democracy in the country are deserving of close examination. Deciding whether democracy is improving or “shrinking” in Venezuela requires a more thoroughgoing and contextualized look at the country's democratic institutions, rather than short glimpses into single events. [...]
Click to expand...
 
During the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, the bien pensants first claimed it didn't happen, or that it is the fault of a bad harvest or some other external cause that has nothing to do with Stalin's dictatorship, or that those who are say the famine occurred are spreading anti-Communist hysteria and scare stories, or all three.

I am not claiming the food shortages in Venezuela are comparable to the great famine in the Ukraine, but the list of threadbare excuses apparently doesn't change, as the Chavez threads in this forum show.

Chavez is a tin-pot dictator who arrests or silences or kills anybody who dares challenge him and is driving Venezuela to pauper's status through idiotic collectivist economic policies. A blind man can see that.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Apropos, good read:
Click to expand...


It's "à propos", and what is your point? Is this a new logical fallacy, the appeal to Canada?

An article by a Socialist writer who is an obvious Chávez apologist making weird biased comparisons between Venezuela and Canada, is that supposed to impress anyone?

As far as I know, the Canadian government never took upon itself to close any news outlets or media because it didn't tell the "Truth".

We don't have a Ministry of Truth in Canada, obviously Venezuela does.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
It's "à propos", and what is your point? Is this a new logical fallacy, the appeal to Canada?
Click to expand...

It's the "but there are hungry people in America too" excuse that was used when the Ukrainian famine was exposed, or the "but McCarthy put people on 'black lists' too" excuse that was used when Stalin's killing of anybody who opposed him politically was exposed, only in a new dress.
 
cornsail said:
Not defending the Tascón List, but that was a list of signees for a petition, not an election or even the recall vote.
Click to expand...

I take it you are ignorant of the Maisanta database then? Do you defend it?

Do you defend the use of the list/database to persecute people who are in opposition to Chavez?

I didn't say they were directly involved in the coup. They gave it favorable coverage and loads of free airtime to the opposition group though. And to my knowledge they didn't cover the counter-protests.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did because they showed the shooters from the opposition. They were not involved in a coup. This was a day of national strikes and protests and counter protests, it was not a planned day of a coup. It was when some senior military decided to disobey orders that they carried out the coup. The TV stations were covering the protests much the same as Fox cover the tea partiers protests at Washington.

Huh?
Click to expand...

Do you watch Fox news? How do you feel their coverage is when it covers tea party protests? What about their big man Glenn Beck and his 9/12 lot?
 
funk de fino said:
I take it you are ignorant of the Maisanta database then? Do you defend it?
Click to expand...

Isn't that pretty much the same thing?

Do you defend the use of the list/database to persecute people who are in opposition to Chavez?
Click to expand...

Didn't I just say I don't defend it? :confused:

Yes, they did because they showed the shooters from the opposition. They were not involved in a coup. This was a day of national strikes and protests and counter protests, it was not a planned day of a coup.
Click to expand...

Fair point. But do you think the government should have considered it's security to be at stake?

Do you watch Fox news?
Click to expand...

I have on occasion.

How do you feel their coverage is when it covers tea party protests?
Click to expand...

Awful.

What about their big man Glenn Beck and his 9/12 lot?
Click to expand...

Awful. Why do you ask?
 
The Democratically elected excuse is what gets to me about the Chavez supporters.. There is a long ,sad, history of people who are elected to office and then become tyrants..and are often quite popular. Just being elected does not mean you cannot be a oppresive, brutal,leader.
 
Skeptic said:
During the Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, the bien pensants first claimed it didn't happen, or that it is the fault of a bad harvest or some other external cause that has nothing to do with Stalin's dictatorship, or that those who are say the famine occurred are spreading anti-Communist hysteria and scare stories, or all three.

I am not claiming the food shortages in Venezuela are comparable to the great famine in the Ukraine, but the list of threadbare excuses apparently doesn't change, as the Chavez threads in this forum show.

Chavez is a tin-pot dictator who arrests or silences or kills anybody who dares challenge him and is driving Venezuela to pauper's status through idiotic collectivist economic policies. A blind man can see that.
Click to expand...

No one is saying Chavez is as bad as Stalin. What we are saying is we are seeing a similiar attempt by some...not all...on the political left to whitewash him similiar to what happened with Stalin in the 1930's.
 
Just being elected? It's nearly twelve years now. Show me any country with such a positive development between 1998 and now.

Just being elected..., Stalin obsession..., how old are you, dudalb?
 
Childlike Empress said:
Show me any country with such a positive development between 1998 and now.
Click to expand...

Let's see... crime rates have soared, Caracas is now more dangerous than Baghdad, oil production is falling, inflation remains high, and price controls have led to food shortages.

Oh, but the poverty level has decreased. But how is poverty defined? In terms of household income relative to the cost of certain goods, including food. If price controls artificially suppress the price of food, then that will magically lift people out of poverty. After all, they can afford more food with these lower prices. That is, if they can find it on the shelves.
 
We've been over this, haven't we Ziggurat?

Childlike Empress said:
Some basic indicators (venezuelan statistics):

[TABLE="head"]|ca 1998|ca 2007
Percentage of Persons in Extreme Poverty|20,6|9,4
Population with access to sewage services (%)|64|82
Population with access to drinking water (%)|80|92
Infant Mortality Rate (per thousand live births)|21,4|13,9
Beneficiary population of the school food program (million)|0,2|1,8
Gross school enrollment rate in basic education (%)|90|99
Gross school enrollment rate in secondary and professional education (%)|27|41
Gross enrollment rate in higher education (%)|21|30
Number of Pension Recipients (million)|0,4|1,1
Number of free medical operations conducted (thousand)|-|40
National Human Development Index|0,69|0,88[/TABLE]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom