Gyroscopic Investing

When a country goes socialist and it craters, it is laughed off as a harmless and forgettable cautionary tale about the perils of command economics. When, by contrast, a country goes socialist and its economy does what Venezuela’s did, it is not perceived to be a laughing matter – and it is not so easy to write off or to ignore. It suddenly looks like a threat to the corporate capitalism, especially when said country has valuable oil resources that global powerhouses like the United States rely on.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_ch ... c_miracle/

You know, things actually would work a lot better with a wise and benevolent dictator.

The first problem is finding said dictator.  But the real problem is when said dictator dies.

More seriously, Venezuela has done surprisingly well.  Not great.  Part of the perception of doing so well is because of the strict control of news coming out of the country.  You don't hear much about how the state run grocery stores frequently are out of staples and people are forced to buy on the black market. All you hear is how much cheaper are prices at the state stores.

But they have done better than I expected.  Perhaps because Chavez started with a lot of foreign investment which he was able to appropriate.  He had the natural resources which are a huge advantage.  And he didn't try to control every little thing from top to bottom of the economy.

Compare with Cuba which had only the first of those three items and leveraged first off the Soviet Union to make up for their shortages, and then China.  And Cuba has had a lot longer to go downhill (50+ years instead of 15).  How

How will Venezuela fair now?  Who knows.  But I do know their system has foregone the rule of law and so requires good leadership and luck.  I'd be surprised if the next 15 years do as well as the last 15.  And then another 20 beyond that to get to age 50 like Cuba is now, then another 20 to get to the 70 years that the Soviet Union lasted.  Hey, if they are still looking good in 20 years maybe I'll move there. 

At the risk of sounding like Sean Penn who said that those who called Chavez a dictator should be jailed I would like to point out that he technically was not a dictator because he was democratically elected. And by most accounts those elections were fair. You may argue that he abused the power of his office in an undemocratic way but our own current president seems to be going down the same path at times (not to mention others who came before him).

I think a big mistake that we Americans make is to look at situations like this in foreign countries that we do not really understand and judge them in our own simplistic black and white terms of capitalism good, socialism bad. I recommend the book "Killing Hope" that details CIA interventions around the world during the Cold War when any popular uprising was deemed to be part of the worldwide communist conspiracy and thus to be suppressed by any means necessary. It will explain a lot of the hatred directed at Americans today.

And along the same lines and speaking of the Cold War here is an interesting story about how Vladimir Putin is going to unilaterally ban adoptions of Russian children by foreign gay couples....

http://rt.com/politics/gay-couples-report-foreign-973/


Very interesting because it looks like the evil empire is once again going to be clashing with American values. Will we have to take up arms to defend freedom again?

I'm probably not the only who has seen this on Google this Easter Sunday. The new Miracle worker.......



What were they thinking?

And that is...?

Wasn't he a non-violent, workers rights fruit and vegetables picker?  I don't see what the issue is.

MachineGhost wrote: Wasn't he a non-violent, workers rights fruit and vegetables picker?  I don't see what the issue is.

Guess I just had Hugo on the mind after reading this thread. I thought that was who they were talking about.

Still an odd choice for Easter in my opinion but Google can do whatever it wants.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... 4833.story
"March 31, as it happens, is Cesar Chavez Day, declared in 2011 by President Obama to honor the man who did more than almost anyone else to improve the condition of migrant farmworkers in this country by leading boycotts, non-violent protests and collective bargaining.

In California, Texas and Colorado, where countless lives are better thanks to Chavez’s persistence and commitment to non-violence, March 31 is a state holiday. In his honor, cities have renamed parks, streets, libraries, schools. Chavez, who popularized “Si, se puede!”? (“Yes, we can!”?) as a rallying cry, is a major American historical figure.

To pick on Google for its "doodle" celebrating a man who devoted his life to helping the most downtrodden among us -- living, in other words, the values expressed by Christ -- smacks of the kind of bullying that conservatives are so quick to see in others.

On Sunday, former Bush press secretary Dana Perino, a regular on Fox News, composed a much-quoted tweet that sums up the worst about this false Jesus Christ/Cesar Chavez dichotomy.  “I thought the Chavez-google thing was a hoax or an early April Fool’s Day prank,”? she tweeted. “Are they just going to leave that up there all day?”?

It’s hard to imagine a world view where celebrating the life of Cesar Chavez is considered a hoax. Unless of course you live in Fox Nation"

I'm sure that high oil prices over the last decade helped Chavez's rule in many ways.

Look at Saudi Arabia for a great example of how political incompetence and oppression can be kept going almost indefinitely with the right type of oil deposits.

Honoring Cesar Chavez is fine.  But if Google chooses him over other options on a major holiday, they should not be immune from ridicule for being out of touch.

Slotine wrote: I think the April fools meta joke they're playing is fox new's reaction.

edit: wrong date

Well it wasn't as wrong as my senior moment mistaking Cesar Chavez with Victor Hugo.

stone wrote: It’s hard to imagine a world view where celebrating the life of Cesar Chavez is considered a hoax. Unless of course you live in Fox Nation"

I don't see what is wrong with celebrating Cesar Chavez--at least he was a community organizer who actually helped people ;-)

Benko wrote: I don't see what is wrong with celebrating Cesar Chavez--at least he was a community organizer who actually helped people ;-)

And also he was a longtime foe of illegal immigration.

MachineGhost wrote: When a country goes socialist and it craters, it is laughed off as a harmless and forgettable cautionary tale about the perils of command economics. When, by contrast, a country goes socialist and its economy does what Venezuela’s did, it is not perceived to be a laughing matter – and it is not so easy to write off or to ignore. It suddenly looks like a threat to the corporate capitalism, especially when said country has valuable oil resources that global powerhouses like the United States rely on.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/06/hugo_ch ... c_miracle/

I don't know much about Hugo Chavez, but I do know he is said to have made a personal fortune worth billions during his reign.  Not exactly what I would call a champion of Socialism. 

Chavez tribute.

http://dailypicksandflicks.com/2013/03/ ... vez-video/

Tyler wrote: Chavez tribute.

http://dailypicksandflicks.com/2013/03/ ... vez-video/

That was awesome.

"Capitalism killed Mars..."

You have to give the man credit for being able to say the most bat-shit crazy things with a completely straight face.

notsheigetz wrote: Chavez ... technically was not a dictator because he was democratically elected. And by most accounts those elections were fair.

Going back to the news reports that he lets out of the country...

Many of the people "observing" and reporting while visiting in the fine country of Chavez have since talked about how they voluntarily would choose to not report on things because they knew they would be kicked out and instead they chose to keep quiet so they could continue to observe.  Since some have been kicked out, it seems likely they correctly assessed the situation.

Chavez was a dictator, a generally benevolent dictator who ruled with a iron fist inside a velvet glove.

Unfortunately we were never able to see what would have happened had he not been able to secure enough support previous to the elections.  Perhaps we'll get to experience exactly the same situation here in the U.S.

rocketdog wrote: I don't know much about Hugo Chavez, but I do know he is said to have made a personal fortune worth billions during his reign.  Not exactly what I would call a champion of Socialism.

But very typical of the leaders and powerful figures in socialist economies.  Lots of news from China the last couple of years of their rich leaders, or the children/spouse of rich leaders, and how the other rich leaders castigate and excoriate (sometimes meeting multiple definitions) them.  It seems it is perfectly OK to be a rich leader in China, but not to flaunt it.

AgAuMoney wrote: Many of the people "observing" and reporting while visiting in the fine country of Chavez have since talked about how they voluntarily would choose to not report on things because they knew they would be kicked out and instead they chose to keep quiet so they could continue to observe.  Since some have been kicked out, it seems likely they correctly assessed the situation.

Sounds like a fine bunch of reporters to me.

And if you're talking about election observers that's even worse.

notsheigetz wrote:

AgAuMoney wrote: Many of the people "observing" and reporting while visiting in the fine country of Chavez have since talked about how they voluntarily would choose to not report on things because they knew they would be kicked out and instead they chose to keep quiet so they could continue to observe.  Since some have been kicked out, it seems likely they correctly assessed the situation.

Sounds like a fine bunch of reporters to me.

And if you're talking about election observers that's even worse.

Both reporters and election observers.

Hard to find, but this one was in my history still:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commen ... glucksmann

Covers more the internal affairs of the country pre-election rather than supposedly independent observers tho:

The recent attack on Globovision, Venezuela’s only surviving independent station, stands out in this regard. The Supreme Court levied a prohibitive fine on Globovision for its coverage of the government’s handling of a recent prison mutiny. As a result, the station’s future looks bleak.
...
To make matters worse, recent reports have emerged that regime loyalists have been meddling directly in opposition affairs in an effort to sow discord. As recently as June 11, the Supreme Court ruled that Chávez’s allies could be installed at the helm of two political parties that previously opposed him.

Regarding the election, the Carter center says:

isolated claims of fraud surfaced after the vote. Nevertheless, the whole opposition leadership, including, most importantly, Capriles himself, unequivocally rejected those claims, stating that the results reflected the will of the electorate. Gaining greater traction instead were complaints about the government’s open use of state resources to support its re-election campaign and the electoral authority’s relative silence on this issue. What Venezuelans refer to as ventajismo, the incumbent using state machinery to create an unlevel playing field during the campaign and extraordinary mobilization on election day, made campaign conditions the main issue in the national debate over the quality of Venezuelan elections.

and that is about the most damning criticism you will find from any official organization that hopes to be allowed back into the country.

Gaining greater traction instead were complaints about the government’s open use of state resources to support its re-election campaign and the electoral authority’s relative silence on this issue. What Venezuelans refer to as ventajismo, the incumbent using state machinery to create an unlevel playing field during the campaign and extraordinary mobilization on election day, made campaign conditions the main issue in the national debate over the quality of Venezuelan elections.

And naive Progressives want publically-financed elections?    The myth that the government is "fair" needs to be demolished.

A quote that's often attributed to Stalin comes to mind here:

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.  Those who count the votes decide everything."