• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arm the poor?

Captain.Sassy said:
No I didn't, and I don't have the understanding of the life and costs for maintenance of capital military expenditures to venture a guess.

But, I do have a confession to make to you:

Earlier in the thread you noted the US spends like 4% GDP on defence, and I said 'I think Sweden spends something like the same amount, actually.' I got this impression from a defence analyst I talked to once. I asked him why Canada couldn't have a thriving domestic arms industry, since Sweden seems to be able to develop and field its own tanks and fighter planes. He told me that he talked to someone from the Swedish defence agency and asked him the same question, and that person's answer was 'we spend a LOT'.

So, that was how my retarded post got made.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you look at defense expenditures divided by GDP for a series of years, say five years, or ten years, you will often notice a trend, upward or downward, of defense outlays as a consistent pattern, or some changes, of spending from funds available. The US had a negative trend for most of the 1990's, due to the political assessment of requirements going down, and the economy growing during that period. Both factors contributed, though IMO the requirements downgrade was the more significant factor.

If a country like Venezuela is also going through a significant change in the economy in general, very strong (relatively) or very weak, that might skew the perception.

I think a comparison along those (GDP) lines would be a useful way to put some context and perspective around Hugo's latest expenditures, though I appreciate your wanting to also fold in the longer term capital commitments any hardware purchases will demand.

Maybe I should be encouraging DC to make that analysis, since he tossed some numbers out that didn't shed much light on the conversation.
Not sure if this site is biased or not, but take a look at these two graphs:

http://venezuelanalysis.com/images/2007/06/image001-6.gif
http://venezuelanalysis.com/images/2007/06/image002-4_p.gif

Granted, that only takes us to 2007, but if you look at the gross dollar amounts spent, first graph, and then look at the recent purchases, it looks as though he's made a non trivial upward change in the last couple of years, but I suspect that analysis and numbers for 2008 and 2009 might need a bit more time/effort.

Put another way: Hugo, if he thinks he needs to counter US military capability, is doing nothing but buy targets for the US Army, Navy, and Air Force to practice on.

"Men mean more than guns in the rating of a ship." -- John Paul Jones --

DR
 
Last edited:
Checked this Stockholm Int'l PEace Research Institute database:
http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

In 2005 USD, there is a definite rise in Venezuelan expenditures from 2003-2006. I checked some old news articles and apparently they bought a bunch of helicopters over this time.

In terms of share of GDP, expenditures followed a fairly downward trend from 1991-2006.

venezuelaw.jpg
 
Last edited:
Captain.Sassy said:
Checked this Stockholm Int'l PEace Research Institute database:
http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4

In 2005 USD, there is a definite rise in Venezuelan expenditures from 2003-2006. I checked some old news articles and apparently they bought a bunch of helicopters over this time.

In terms of share of GDP, expenditures followed a fairly downward trend from 1991-2006.

[qimg]http://img697.imageshack.us/i/venezuelaw.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

The piece was looking at 2 years. It rose.
 
funk de fino said:
I never made the claim. You said it was lies. You have to prove it is false. You used the wrong data. Don't slip into truther mode and try and shift the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

that the article is wrong, is out of question.

the article itself has a correction at the end. it was wrong.
i have already posted it. the burdon of proof was always on the NYtimes side. they claimed they soar the world rank, and they came to the conclusion by citing a wrong statistic from the defence department.

so like i already said, its not a lie, they were misstaken.

the NYTimes used the wrong data, they even say that at the end of the article.
 
funk de fino said:
The price of oil is not the main reason that PDVSA are in a mess. The firing of the top guys is the biggest reason.

Give me an achievemnt and I will comment on it. I don't see many nowadays.
Click to expand...

yeah firing top guys will take a while untill they have the knowledge again. but im sure they can do it.

how about healthcare in Venezuelas Barios? just one example.
 
i think the NYtimes is cleared from wrongdoing, but how about miss Clinton.
anyone want to defend her claim?

they spend most in SA, an this she said in the year where Venezuela has spend 3 billions and Brazil has spend 12 Billion.
 
the Yearbook from SIPRI points out that there is no armsrace in SA, but that Venezuela and others in the region are updating theyr up to 20 year old wartoys.
 
Maybe I should be encouraging DC to make that analysis, since he tossed some numbers out that didn't shed much light on the conversation.
Click to expand...

i think they make alot sence once you read the SIPRI yearbook.
 
DC said:
that the article is wrong, is out of question.

the article itself has a correction at the end. it was wrong.
i have already posted it. the burdon of proof was always on the NYtimes side. they claimed they soar the world rank, and they came to the conclusion by citing a wrong statistic from the defence department.

so like i already said, its not a lie, they were misstaken.

the NYTimes used the wrong data, they even say that at the end of the article.
Click to expand...

You said they lied. You have yet to prove that, after the correction, the point did not stand. You used wrong data.
 
DC said:
yeah firing top guys will take a while untill they have the knowledge again. but im sure they can do it.
Click to expand...

Not while their debts are piling up to service companies. They are getting worse.

how about healthcare in Venezuelas Barios? just one example.
Click to expand...

Improvements no doubt.
 
funk de fino said:
You said they lied. You have yet to prove that, after the correction, the point did not stand. You used wrong data.
Click to expand...

but i corrected myself later.
i said, they didnt lie, they were misstaken. i didnt use wrong data, the NYTimes did, or the US defence department
 
DC said:
but i corrected myself later.
i said, they didnt lie, they were misstaken. i didnt use wrong data, the NYTimes did, or the US defence department
Click to expand...

Yes, you did. You used data from 2007. It should have been data from 2005 and 2006. You cannot be that dumb surely?
 
funk de fino said:
Yes, you did. You used data from 2007. It should have been data from 2005 and 2006. You cannot be that dumb surely?
Click to expand...

they used wrong data

An article on Feb. 25 about an escalation in Venezuela’s arms spending referred incorrectly to a statistic cited by the Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States as evidence of a rapid arms buildup. It was a 12.5 percent increase in Venezuela’s 2006 defense budget, not an increase in the value of arms purchased by Venezuela last year.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DC said:
they used wrong data
Click to expand...

It was still the wrong year you used to try and prove them wrong. They used the data the wrong way.

You made a mistake. You used the wrong data to make your point. Just admit it.
 
funk de fino said:
It was still the wrong year you used to try and prove them wrong. They used the data the wrong way.

You made a mistake. You used the wrong data to make your point. Just admit it.
Click to expand...

yes the NYT and I used wrong data.

misstakes, if you only would harp on Hillarys misstake that much. she is alot more influental than i am :)
 
DC said:
yes the NYT and I used wrong data.

misstakes, if you only would harp on Hillarys misstake that much. she is alot more influental than i am :)
Click to expand...

Now that was easy. They made a mistake. You made a mistake.

You are more influential on me than Hilary though ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom