• 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.

Send in the tanks! (Chavez)

When Chavez took power there was one government owned TV station and two government owned radio stations. Now there are six government owned TV stations along with three print media companies and three thousand smaller radio stations.

Two privately owned TV networks agreed to toe the line and one was closed down.

Chavez basically used government funds to build his own media empire.
 
When Chavez took power there was one government owned TV station and two government owned radio stations. Now there are six government owned TV stations along with three print media companies and three thousand smaller radio stations.

Two privately owned TV networks agreed to toe the line and one was closed down.

Chavez basically used government funds to build his own media empire.

what percentage of Radio/TV stations and newspapers is state owned?

my country also has more national public TV stations than national private TV stations. here its no problem because we have freedom of press.
 
Last edited:
The Great Chavez expresses his progressive and humane thoughts on Idi Amin:



About former Ugandan President Idi Amin, Mr Chavez said: “We thought he was a cannibal… I don’t know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot.”
Idi Amin seized power in 1971. About 300,000 people were killed during his eight-year rule.


I have to wonder what type of person admires a monster like Idi Amin.
 
Last edited:
Is Chavez good for the poor? Venezuela's former Chief Economist says otherwise.

Chaveznomics is far from unprecedented: the gross contours of this story follow the disastrous experiences of many Latin American countries during the 1970s and 1980s. The economists Rudiger Dornbusch and Sebastian Edwards have characterized such policies as "the macroeconomics of populism." Drawing on the economic experiences of administrations as politically diverse as Juan Per?n's in Argentina, Salvador Allende's in Chile, and Alan Garcia's in Peru, they found stark similarities in economic policies and in the resulting economic evolution. Populist macroeconomics is invariably characterized by the use of expansionary fiscal and economic policies and an overvalued currency with the intention of accelerating growth and redistribution. These policies are commonly implemented in the context of a disregard for fiscal and foreign exchange constraints and are accompanied by attempts to control inflationary pressures through price and exchange controls. The result is by now well known to Latin American economists: the emergence of production bottlenecks, the accumulation of severe fiscal and balance-of-payments problems, galloping inflation, and plummeting real wages.

Chavez's behavior is typical of such populist economic experiments. The initial successes tend to embolden policymakers, who increasingly believe that they were right in dismissing the recommendations of most economists. Rational policy formulation becomes increasingly difficult, as leaders become convinced that conventional economic constraints do not apply to them. Corrective measures only start to be taken when the economy has veered out of control. But by then it is far too late.

Socialism doesn't work. I keep telling leftists that it's a sham but they're all like "nahh, this time it's real." The main beneficiaries of Chavez's spending bonanza are the paid sycophants. Unfortunately paying sycophants doesn't actually generate wealth.
 
Last edited:
CE what do you have to say about the imprisonment of Judge Afiuni by decree with no charge and no trial?

What has happened to Judge Maria Afiuni is an obscenity. This poor woman has endured savage beatings among other horrible circumstances. But I guess TheGreatChavez needed to set an example of the price those who displease him must pay.
 
Last edited:
Every Sunday Hugo Chavez hosts a TV show "Aló Presidente" which runs as long as he wants and he sits there rambling, singing, talking to Fidel Castro on the phone and other bizarre things. It's compulsory for government ministers to attend because he often sets government policy on a whim on this show. Sometimes he calls them out to berate them for this or that on national TV. He once fired someone this way. Once he used his show to order tanks to the Columbian border.
 
Last edited:
Populist macroeconomics is invariably characterized by the use of expansionary fiscal and economic policies and an overvalued currency with the intention of accelerating growth and redistribution..

I heard a very interesting argument recently about why so much of the third world is always so deeply in debt. Basically, the argument was that it's not because of predatory lending, it's not because the countries are poor, and it's not because of mistaken policies: it's an intentional strategy of dictators. By bankrupting their own countries, they basically remove the resources that possible rivals might use against the dictator. If that thesis is correct, then the intention of such disastrous policies is not to accelerate growth, but to cripple it. It doesn't produce economic ruin by accident, but by design. Only the dictator can buy off the thugs, because there's no money anywhere for anyone else to pay them.
 
I heard a very interesting argument recently about why so much of the third world is always so deeply in debt. Basically, the argument was that it's not because of predatory lending, it's not because the countries are poor, and it's not because of mistaken policies: it's an intentional strategy of dictators. By bankrupting their own countries, they basically remove the resources that possible rivals might use against the dictator. If that thesis is correct, then the intention of such disastrous policies is not to accelerate growth, but to cripple it. It doesn't produce economic ruin by accident, but by design. Only the dictator can buy off the thugs, because there's no money anywhere for anyone else to pay them.

I must say this sounds persuasive.

I wish to add to this, namely that people who are fighting for survival and just manage to cover the basic needs of food, shelter and safe water, are much less likely to rebel than a more affluent populace. This is for at least two reasons, the first one is that any drop in living standards (which is a certainty during a revolution) means some will starve to death. The second is that they must expand practically all energy just to stay alive and don't have enough time to think and to organize, there isn't much (if any) spare labor.

All in all, you may have hit the nail on the head here. I'd add a smiley if the issue weren't as serious and ugly.

McHrozni
 
that is a centralisation in your book? for me those are violations of freedom of press and a lack of protection for journalists.

How do you call a government which violates freedoms of the press and doesn't protect journalists?

McHrozni
 
I must say this sounds persuasive.

I wish to add to this, namely that people who are fighting for survival and just manage to cover the basic needs of food, shelter and safe water, are much less likely to rebel than a more affluent populace. This is for at least two reasons, the first one is that any drop in living standards (which is a certainty during a revolution) means some will starve to death. The second is that they must expand practically all energy just to stay alive and don't have enough time to think and to organize, there isn't much (if any) spare labor.

All in all, you may have hit the nail on the head here. I'd add a smiley if the issue weren't as serious and ugly.

McHrozni

Possibly. But look at the Gulf Kingdoms. People are kept comfortable so the Arab spring never took off there. The Chinese dictatorship hinges its survival on economic growth and letting people to make money.
 
Possibly. But look at the Gulf Kingdoms. People are kept comfortable so the Arab spring never took off there. The Chinese dictatorship hinges its survival on economic growth and letting people to make money.

I'm not saying this is the only way to run a dictatorship, it's just one possibility that's frequently used.

Look at the example of China, where an increasingly affluent populace is also growing increasingly dissatisfied with the regime and demands change.

McHrozni
 
what percentage of Radio/TV stations and newspapers is state owned?

my country also has more national public TV stations than national private TV stations. here its no problem because we have freedom of press.

Is there freedom of press in Venezuela?

If not, is it still relevant who owns the stations?

McHrozni
 
Possibly. But look at the Gulf Kingdoms. People are kept comfortable so the Arab spring never took off there. The Chinese dictatorship hinges its survival on economic growth and letting people to make money.

The gulf kingdoms are very unusual in just how much money they have per capita from oil. That allows the rulers to live in ridiculous luxury PLUS buy off the populace from a source of wealth they can control completely. Most dictatorships, even ones with oil, can't do that.

And China is simply too big to go into debt because nobody is going to lend them enough money to make that strategy work. Plus they're a party dictatorship, not an individual dictator, which changes incentives.
 
How do you call a government which violates freedoms of the press and doesn't protect journalists?

McHrozni

i don0t know, in German there is no specific name for it, there is in english?
 
Is there freedom of press in Venezuela?

If not, is it still relevant who owns the stations?

McHrozni

yes there is, but not to the level we have.
yes when talking about zantralisation of the media, yes it is relevant.
 
yes there is, but not to the level we have.

You're apparently using a definition of "freedom of press" that markedly differs from all other known to man. It could be a special type of cheesecake for all I know.

Please tell us what 'level' of freedom of press can you have when journalists are prosecuted for reporting?

McHrozni
 

Back
Top Bottom