Tickle down. We have heard it before for the last 30 years.. No credibility. The wealth is not finite, but without sufficient regulation of "free" markets it leads to horrible poverty for many as the overalll wealth grows. History not libertarian theories should be our guide.
MY statement has nothing to do with the validity of trickle down economics. It's a basic understanding of how wealth is generated. You should look up in your history books about a little country called America, where everyone has a tv.
It's amazing that his shtick still works but he panders to the poor and uneducated, which is the bulk of his country and they just don't know any better. It was interesting to talk to people while I was there and have everyone talk about how much they hate him, granted it was a small sample of those people were middle class and more.
Hugo Chavez is one of the most entertaining world leaders (seriously, take a look at his folk rock album and eye surgery program). That being said, has any world leader mismanaged vast sums of oil like Chavez? He is truly incompetent on this front.
Here's a few details: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/09/22/decade-under-ch-vez It also offers some insight into how Chavez wins elections. Apologies in advance for the Libertarian slant of hrw.org
This. Yes, I had the same experience. I am convinced that glynch would HATE him if he was doing the same kind of things he does, just representing the right side of the political spectrum instead of the left. Instead, he blindly loves him. Insane. Chavez buys votes, etc. etc. etc. Venezuela has become an unsafe country, their intellectual elite has been driven away. Chavez might have had good intentions initially, but he is basically an uneducated dictator.
Hey, nice try. I never said he is perfect wrt rto free speech. Hopefully you acknowlege the US backed coup and attempts to destabilize the country. Interestingly the same folks who demand high level of freedom of speech in Venezuela, defend the Patriot Act and other abuses of our own civil liberties for far less provocation than the democratically elected (over and over again) government of Hugo Chavez. has endured. It seems to be hard for many folks, much less free market fundies, to realize that being hungry and desperately poor and without health care is not being "free" even if you have free speech.
All politicians are filth. The greatest failures of humanity have always been perpetuated by its 'leaders.' Every election is an attempt to choose the lesser evil, not the greater good.
If the "99%" won, I wonder why the popular vote wasn't closer to 99% to 1%? IMO, bolstered by the opinions of Venuzuelan refugees, if an honest vote were allowed in this Chavezistic state, the result would have been very different.
If by "sharing the wealth" you mean "destroying it for everyone through inflation", than I guess you're correct. And this is coming from someone who rolls his eyes at the general paranoia towards inflation that most people have. ...............what?
I'm not a fan of Chavez and have my own questions about the election process (though, relatively speaking, there haven't been too many questions about the elections with international watchdogs in the past). But that said, do you really think opinions of refugees who are fleeing the country are really a good way to judge opinions within the country? Barring evidence of vote fraud - and even the opposition hasn't argued that this time around, as far as I can tell - apparently the majority of people in Venezuela approve of him. There are, of course, problems with the media and what information the people are actually getting. It's a weird case to know what real opinions are because he really has done good things for the poor and lower class there in terms of quality of life, but with a lot of serious consequences for the wealthy and for the idea of freedom in general. But freedom has different value in different cultures, so it's unclear how that affects the local viewpoints of him. And not really sure what net effect he's had on the middle classes.
Actually I might So American is practically next on my travel agenda. Have to admit that I was thinking more Rio and Argentian and Chile. Despite your nuttiness wrt to Muslims I think you are smart enough to know that if Chavez has say 55-60% support overall and maybe 80% among the urban and rural poor I could get off the middle class tourist track and talk to people who support him. or I could talk to the upper class folks or perhaps those involved in tourism who don't support him.
I have middle class friends from Venezuela who hate Chavez. They say the poor people of Venezuela view him as a somewhat of a Robin Hood who throws them trinkets while fighting the evil empire (USA and other powerful countries). This is much like poor Colombians viewed Pablo Escobar in the same light while believing his evil deeds were justified because he gave them things and that he had them convinced he was fighting the evil Colombian government.
...except Pablo exported the cocaine that killed neighborhoods, Chavez exports the oil that Americans can still live in the era of cheap oil, and him "going against the evil empire" is a bit of saber-rattling, mass exports to the USA, and a stated belief that maybe China might be a better customer.
Chavez buses illiterate people from all over the country to the voting booths, basically outright buying their votes. Just because the majority of people in one country supports a dictator at a given time does not mean that the dictator is a good person or doing the right things for the country. I know this from my own country's history...not that Chavez is THAT bad.
That's what they have large, powerful, monolithic unions that cause wages to go well over market levels and has pensions and benefits that are unsustainable financially.
