/ Chavez Dead

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
AndrewHuddart - on 05 Mar 2013
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053

The inevitable has happened.

A new and pragmatic era for South America ahead?
Mike7 on 05 Mar 2013
Unfortunately pragmatism and South American politics rarely come together.
David Martin - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu:

Damn. A shame they had to be so secretive about his illness.
AndrewHuddart - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to David Martin:

The idea of him being too unwell to have an inauguration but still ok to rule was stretching things even for Venezuela!

Nevertheless, it'll be interesting to see where things go from here.
David Martin - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu:

Just frequented a rather right-wing American forum I used to visit. They're cheering his death as though its the greatest news of the year. Sickening.
In reply to David Martin: Some will do the same when Thatcher shuffles off this mortal coil here. Ugly and unhelpful in some ways but predictable at least!

My Twitter feed is currently full of Somalis celebrating Chavez, which is interesting.
ice.solo - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu:

just in case its not taking root by itself;

the CIA did it and ahmedinajhads next
Mike7 on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:

Somalis celebrating?

Which Twitter feeds?
I like climbing - on 05 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu:
Very sad news for me.
NobbyPiles on 06 Mar 2013
The US envoy was booted out pretty quickly. something's brewing!!
Jim Fraser - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Mike7:
> Unfortunately pragmatism and South American politics rarely come together.


Really? I thought South American political pragmatism was where you bend over and let the Americans f3ck your country. Hugo Chavez was there looking for another way. I respect him for that. That doesn't mean I agree with everything he did.

Dauphin - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Jim Fraser:

Ditto Jim. Interesting Character. Very Humble. Not the comic strip commie Dictator that the Murdoch Press would like you to believe. Definitely flawed. Sad that he died so young. Sepsis after a long bout of chemo & xrt is a terrible way to go.

Viva la Revolucion!

D
In reply to Mike7: I meant celebrating his life not his death, as a nationalist hero. I guess some Somalis want one of those for their own country!
woolsack - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu: if it didnt have so much oil the yankees might have left it alone
TryfAndy on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu:

He was a good man, and one who stood up to US imperialism well. The world needs more leaders like him, RIP.
lowersharpnose - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:

The man was squandering his countries wealth and future prospects.

Petrol is 6c a gallon. This encourages waste and smuggling and robs the future to bribe current voters. Nuts.
MikeTS - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu:

I hope (but doubt) that the Venezuelan people get the better government they deserve. He blew his country's oil money.
MikeTS - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to TryfAndy:
> (In reply to hindu)
>
> He was a good man,

Not if you were Jewish. His policy was that Jews were disloyal, and several times invaded the Jewish Community centre by force. Half of the Jews of Venezuela have fled the country.
Steve John B - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to MikeTS:
> (In reply to TryfAndy)
> [...]
>
> Not if you were Jewish. His policy was that Jews were disloyal, and several times invaded the Jewish Community centre by force. Half of the Jews of Venezuela have fled the country.

Socialists have form for that kind of thing.
woolsack - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to MikeTS:
> (In reply to TryfAndy)
> [...]
>
> Not if you were Jewish. His policy was that Jews were disloyal, and several times invaded the Jewish Community centre by force. Half of the Jews of Venezuela have fled the country.

What hypocrisy! If you wish to take the spec from your brothers eye, first take the plank from your own
dek - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to woolsack:
It was all a Mossad plot to infect Chavez with cancer, eh Wooley?!
woolsack - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to dek:
> (In reply to woolsack)
> It was all a Mossad plot to infect Chavez with cancer, eh Wooley?!

No numbnut, you're quite happy to displace the Palestinians though aren't you?

I expect the CIA spent plenty of time staring at goats working out how to poison his soup though
In reply to woolsack:

> No numbnut, you're quite happy to displace the Palestinians though aren't you?

But what has that got to do with Venezuelans and how they are treated by their government? Should we be allowed to target British Jews because they are Jews and ignore the British bit?
IainRUK - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to woolsack: Hold on.. you are both being equally hypocritical..

Clearly in both incidences a wrong is/was happening.

woolsack - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to IainRUK: I was more pointing out to Mike TS and Dek that it is a bit rich for them to start complaining until they put their own house in order
woolsack - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:
> (In reply to woolsack)
>
> [...]
>
> But what has that got to do with Venezuelans and how they are treated by their government? Should we be allowed to target British Jews because they are Jews and ignore the British bit?

I was taking a leaf out of your book Toby with some of your great sub saharan red herrings :)
Lukeva - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu: I know nowt about him, other than his position and that he called George Dub 'the devil'
In reply to woolsack: You've missed the point then. I have questioned the origins of Bruce's (and perhaps yours too?) deep interest in the wrongs carried out by the Israeli government and a seeming indifference to or ignorance of other situations where other governments treat people very badly, but that's a question of a commentators motivations, not the events themselves.

Here Mike raised something that Chavez did to Venezuelan Jews, and you countered by ignoring those events and saying Israelis are bad. But what's that got to do with the price of eggs? Unless of course you think Jews can't really be Venezuelans because they are jews, an idea that has unpleasant resonances. Maybe you don't think that at all, but why then respond by denouncing Israel when something to do with non-Israeli Jews living - what? - 5,000 miles away from Israel is discussed?


Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu: Shame, the world needs more people willing to act on the behalf of the majority of their voters, as opposed to those who scream the loudest with the greatest sense of entitlement. The SAPs in Africa in the 80s turned back decades of sensible subsidy policy, the intellectually bankrupt consensus which introduced them should be heeded no more, subsidy remains a sensible strategy in poor countries. Ireland subsidises artists, we subsidise various multinationals with monetary policy and lately ludicrous fiscal policy too. Neoliberalism no longer holds a valid, non-hypocritical argument against subsidy.

I'm not sure what you view as pragmatic, but that word usually is to imply in support of the western status quo. I'm not hoping for another Pinochet.
dissonance - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> Neoliberalism no longer holds a valid, non-hypocritical argument against subsidy.

of course it does, you simply rename it. Or alternatively hand out massive contracts to the companies with leeway for reuse. Bonus points if you then complain about another country who doesnt rename the subsidy.


ads.ukclimbing.com
woolsack - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:


> Here Mike raised something that Chavez did to Venezuelan Jews, and you countered by ignoring those events and saying Israelis are bad. But what's that got to do with the price of eggs?

I found it somewhat ironic that Mike can come on here and protest about this injustice on this thread yet robustly defend the same thing on a thread about Israel- double standards


> Unless of course you think Jews can't really be Venezuelans because they are jews, an idea that has unpleasant resonances. Maybe you don't think that at all, but why then respond by denouncing Israel when something to do with non-Israeli Jews living - what? - 5,000 miles away from Israel is discussed?

^^I think you are getting a bit carried away here
In reply to woolsack:

> ^^I think you are getting a bit carried away here

It wasn't me who brought up Israel's crimes when Venezuelans Jews were being discussed.

Anyway, moving on... anyone else read the New Yorker blog obit? http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/postscript-hugo-chavez-1954-2013.html Seems a pretty worthwhile summation of Chavez's successes and failings. I had never read before that it was actually Castro who got him to see a doctor, which led to the cancer being diagnosed!
Morgan Woods - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to I like climbing:
> (In reply to hindu)
> Very sad news for me.

yes - he's been a great beacon for democracy.
AndrewHuddart - on 06 Mar 2013
Chateauneuf du Boeuf - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu: Usual balance I see.
doz generale - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Steve John B:
> (In reply to MikeTS)
> [...]
>
> Socialists have form for that kind of thing.

Seeing as the Jews have been expelled from over 100 different states and countries since ad250 You cant really say it's a socialist trait.
Eric9Points - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to MikeTS:
> (In reply to hindu)
>
> I hope (but doubt) that the Venezuelan people get the better government they deserve. He blew his country's oil money.

Yep, blew the cash on giving education and welfare to the peasants he championed rather than letting the rich fill their their pockets with it.

What a waste.

d508934 - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Chateauneuf du Boeuf:
> (In reply to hindu) Usual balance I see.

Try here for a more balanced view:

'One of Washington’s problems is that, as Greg Palast recognises, Mr. Chávez kept oil revenues within Latin America; unlike Saudi Arabia, which buys U.S. treasury bills and other assets, Venezuela at one point withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve, and since 2007 has aided other Latin American countries with $36 billion, most of which has been repaid back. In effect, this supplants the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and possibly also its neoliberal fellow—crusader the World Bank. Even more unpalatably for Washington, Chávismo is now a clear political programme towards a Bolivarian Revolution, which Palast calls a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, with progressive income tax, public works, social security, and cheap electricity. For Bolivarians, such things are rights; they are even reminiscent of T.H. Marshall’s view that they are integral to substantive citizenship. Worst of all for U.S. regional hegemony, Mr. Chávez himself said Venezuela is no longer an oil colony, that it has regained its oil sovereignty, and that he wanted to replace the IMF with an International Humanitarian Bank based on cooperation; Uruguay already pays for Venezuelan oil with cows. Mr. Chávez wished the IMF and the World Bank would “disappear”, and his passionate concern for Latin American countries’ sovereignty made him a decisive figure in the 2011 creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (Celac).'

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/world/hugo-chvez-death-of-a-socialist/article4481169.ece
Mike7 on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:

Yes, I understood what you meant - I was simply trying to source the feeds that had the comments.
biped - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to MikeTS)
> [...]
>
> Yep, blew the cash on giving education and welfare to the peasants he championed rather than letting the rich fill their their pockets with it.
>
> What a waste.

Ditto. And take a bow for a rare (not for you, but for this thread) on-topic post on yet another thread that really ought to be sub-titled: "(Chavez Dead), and what it means in the context of everything in the world revolving around Israel".

Toccata on 06 Mar 2013
John Rushby - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Toccata:

Unusually barbed ending for the Mash.

Galloway is a fud though.
Bruce Hooker - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to TobyA:

So Chavez and anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-semitic? That makes you anti-semitic for criticizing the cast lead massacre, does it? You Mike and dek really should, change your disk, it's getting pretty stale.

Chavez supported the Palestinians (themselves semitic BTW, you zionists always seem to forget that!) and if he had problems with Venezuelan Jews who supported Israel, of other Venezuelans did then that would explain why many Jews left Venezuela, wouldn't it? Really anything is good for you to attack those who resist the yanks... people are starting to notice :-)

As for the problems Jews may have in the world these days, if it is true, it's hardly surprising as the vast majority openly support Israel - the other day the Turkish PM (I think it was the PM) made a speech against zionism and all the press was full of articles and declarations by both Israeli government officials and Jewish Organisations in other countries up in arms - he doesn't have the right to criticize Israel apparently, despite their killing of 9 Turks on a pirate raid in international waters!

If Jews throughout the world support Israel in it's takeover of Palestine and the genocide of the native population you can hardly complain that people who defend justice and equality of all humans should react. If you have read any of the memoirs of earl zionist terrorists, who set up Israel from 48 onwards you would know this was their policy anyway, mistreat Muslims so badly that all over the world a backlash against Jews would drive them into their arms in Israel, the flow of immigration needed a boost from time to time, as it does today.
John Rushby - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Not entirely relevant but I spent a good bit of time today reporting some nasty anti Semitic shit on the Torygraph website.

Must be tough being Jooz (sic). The hard left and hard right hate them much they should get a room.
Dave Garnett - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Anyway how different to the home life of our own dear Queen, who has also had an uncomfortable week...

Her interests though are purely anti-emetic.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/both-ends-says-queen-2013030461617

John Rushby - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I feel sorry for the old girl. She's 84 and still working. She should be home playing Foxy Bingo, eating hobnobs and feeding her cats.
Bruce Hooker - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

> Must be tough being Jooz (sic). The hard left and hard right hate them much they should get a room.

Yup, you're right, hard lefties like Karl Marx, Trotsky, Léon Blum etc were really heavy on the Jews!

Coming back on subject I've been watching the TV coverage in France and it's really pretty anti-Chavez, even if they have to grant that he was popular, honest, lived a very simple life himself, had devoted his life to distributing oil wealth, setting up health and education and so on they couldn't help insisting more on the negative side - a panel show on the at the moment doesnr't have a single pro-Chavez "expert"... no mention of anti-semitism though :-)

One point that struck me is he was shown embracing several other non-aligned world leaders who stood up for their independence from US domination and nearly all of them have been killed or, like Assad are well on the way! It makes you realise just how murderous the lands of democracy still are, despite the Rights of Man and all the bullshit!
Gudrun - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu:

To all the half-wits who lie about Chavez being a dictator, he was voted in to power democratically in national elections 4 times.

Surviving a US coup by the rich elites who wanted to install an *actual* dictator.

Reduced poverty by 30% in his time just one of his fantastic achievements.
John Rushby - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

Thatcher was democratically erected .,.,
Gudrun - on 06 Mar 2013
In reply to John Rushby:

See-

Reduced poverty by 30% in his time just one of his fantastic achievements.

Increased poverty by 30% in her time just one of her catastrophic failures.
andic - on 07 Mar 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin:
> (In reply to hindu)
>
> To all the half-wits who lie about Chavez being a dictator, he was voted in to power democratically in national elections 4 times.
>

Well sort of, do you really deny he "took steps" to ensure no one else could beat him?
Gudrun - on 07 Mar 2013
In reply to andic:
> (In reply to GudrunEnsslin)
> [...]
>
> Well sort of, do you really deny he "took steps" to ensure no one else could beat him?

Do you deny that the Tories took steps to ensure no one else could beat them?

Sorry but you must see how ridiculous your last comment was.
IainRUK - on 08 Mar 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin: for real?

This is the guy who praised Assad.. called him a 'humanist'..

Bruce Hooker - on 08 Mar 2013
In reply to andic:
> (In reply to GudrunEnsslin)
> [...]
>
> Well sort of, do you really deny he "took steps" to ensure no one else could beat him?

Not at all, he took steps to help the poor needy of Venezuela, improve the life of the people at home, followed a popular policy abroad and so on. In other words he gave people what the wanted and what was just so they voted for him. Highly unfair for a politician to do this, I'll grant you that!
Bruce Hooker - on 08 Mar 2013
In reply to hindu:

Here's an article about Chavez that some may like even if others won't:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-02-060313.html

A quote:

"Stark numbers tell most of the story that needs to be known. Venezuelan public deficit is a mere 7,4% of GDP. Public debt is 51,3% of GDP - much less than the European Union average. The public sector - defying apocalyptic "communist" accusations - accounts for only 18,4% of the economy; less than state-oriented France and even the whole of Scandinavia. In terms of geopolitics of oil, quotas are established by OPEC; so the fact that Venezuela is exporting less to the US means it's diversifying its customers (and exporting more and more to strategic partner China).

And here's the clincher; poverty accounted for 71% of Venezuelan citizens in 1996. In 2010, the percentage had been reduced to 21%. For a serious analysis of the Venezuelan economy in the Chavez era, see here."


http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/7513

off-duty - on 08 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I am (very) far from an expert on Chavez or Venezuela, but a cynical view of the country and Chavez would be that he has demonstrated that when provided with a huge supply of an extremely valuable commodity then, regardless of how it might or might not be mismanaged, if you pour the money from it into welfare and social reform then you can make large positive changes to a country that with 71% poverty was pretty screwed up in the first place. Socialism can work!

The question might be how well it works when the money runs out or when a significant proportion of society has attained a middle class status equivalent to the rest of the developed world.

Bruce Hooker - on 08 Mar 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Partly true but the point is that all leaders of oil rich countries don't do this. As for the money running out, there's a long way to go and if left to themsleves they may do better than others. Going from 71% poverty to 21% can't be bad though, can it? And, as far as I know without having a war with anyone, which is even more unusual in countries where oil is flowing.
off-duty - on 08 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to off-duty)
>
> Partly true but the point is that all leaders of oil rich countries don't do this. As for the money running out, there's a long way to go and if left to themsleves they may do better than others. Going from 71% poverty to 21% can't be bad though, can it? And, as far as I know without having a war with anyone, which is even more unusual in countries where oil is flowing.

Absolutely - but being less corrupt than an African dictator, or more public spirited than a Saudi prince, whilst laudable isn't exactly sainthood...
Gudrun - on 09 Mar 2013
In reply to off-duty:

Tell that to the millions who couldn't read or write had no access to medical care or affordable housing and food.

Can you even begin to imagine?

You can talk words but can you know how it would feel in reality?

So what pray tell is your idea of this sainthood?
off-duty - on 09 Mar 2013
In reply to GudrunEnsslin:

My suggestion is just that your hero might have feet of clay. However praiseworthy you might consider his actions, saints wouldn't generally be the recipient of criticism for human right abuses.

Hauling a country out of abject poverty by well meaning spending of oil profits is better behaviour than many oil exporters, but it will be interesting to see whether the companies he established and the regime he imposed can successfully cope with a burgeoning and affluent middle class.

It's easier to be a popular hero when your people just want bread on the table, it's a lot more complex when they want jobs, consumer goods and the ability to freely criticise the state.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Mar 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> It's easier to be a popular hero when your people just want bread on the table,

And yet so many governments don't even do this. When climbing a mountain you have to start at the bottom surely, you are criticising them for things you think they might do. I can't remember the juridical term for this but you must know?

> it's a lot more complex when they want jobs, consumer goods and the ability to freely criticise the state.

Yes and no, at least when they can all eat, are housed and have work it's not bad compared to the past and many neighbouring countries. They still have problems, with crime for example, but they admit they had underestimated this, thinking that increasing prosperity would automatically reduce crime. In France the Jospin government made exactly the same mistake, as they admitted afterwards, but getting everything right is something that no governments manage.

As for freedom of speech and opposition, this already exists, election campaigns are more lively than many in Europe, but for the last four main government elections the opposition has not gained the favour of Venezuelans, which is simply democracy at work.
off-duty - on 09 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Unfortunately I am not well enough informed to comment on the arrangements in place in Venezuela to run the oil industry and other wealth generating companies - though from what I have read it may well not be the best.
It seems reasonable to express concern over the longer term effects of these systems - whilst being equally reasonable to say that he has spent the money in a very benevolent fashion.

I totally agree that democracy doesn't always produce a result that an outside observer might agree with or think is best for the country. I imagine that the opposition will have had very little argument to compete with the governments ability to throw oil money around - hence prospects for election would be poorer.
To be perhaps unfairly cynical I could question his motivation - anyone who takes time out of running a country to have a TV program that goes on all day is suggestive of a person whose motivation might well be personal popularity - but regardless the changes he has made to poverty in the short term in the country are remarkable and radical.

Perhaps when the country was/becomes affluent the longer term effects of chav-ism might kick in - though perhaps everything he did economically will turn out to have excellent prospects.

I suppose my point is that I would prefer a bit of perspective before he is sanctified, and I'm not sure that socialist policies dragging a country from abject poverty through access to unlimited wealth is an indication that a socialist utopia is possible in maintaining a society at it's peak.
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Mar 2013
In reply to off-duty:

> I suppose my point is that I would prefer a bit of perspective before he is sanctified.

To tell you the truth I find the "sanctifying" a bit eerie, but maybe that's the way they are in Venezuela. Apparently there have been quite a lot of references to religion in the way it's all presented which to most Europeans may seem to be incompatible with socialism, usually firmly materialist, but that's why it's called South American Socialism or Bolivarianism... it's all a bit too emotional for my taste, but I'm not them.

This thread has inspired me to look the terms up a bit, which is one good thing about these forums:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarianism

I haven't been to Venezuela but did go to Bolivia in my youth and really liked the place and the people who are 90% Indian as Chavez is, I think. At the time an extreme right dictator called Banzer had just taken over in a coup so when the present President was elected I was quite pleased as they had been waiting a long time for one of their own to come to power. Until then it was the upper classes of Spanish origin who had ruled the roost and racism towards the native population - the majority - was casual and widespread. Personally I hope the present political trend continues, it's about time.

If you look at film of Chavez's supporters and then of the right wing opposition, either in the country of in the USA, as shown a lot on the telly of late, it looks like the same racial/class division exists in Venezuela as in Bolivia. It's another point that seems to be missed by a lot of the anti-Chavez posters.
Mike Stretford - on 09 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> (In reply to hindu)
>
> Here's an article about Chavez that some may like even if others won't:
>

It shouldn't be a case or like or not, or choosing which side to be on, but acknowledging the mixed fortunes of Venzuela under Chavez

For a bit of balance

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/03/06/venezuelas-economy-under-chavez-by-the-numbers/

I know it's US media but the high inflation figures and crime rate are accepted worldwide.

He undoubtedly did a lot if good, but there's also a lot that future socially minded leaders of oil rich counties could improve on.

I find it a bit of a contradiction when socialist countries go in for the personality cult thing.
Bruce Hooker - on 09 Mar 2013
In reply to Papillon:

These figure have already been linked on the thread, the Guardian has a complete list of statistics, including the negative ones. The inflation figures are not good but not so unusual for S America, they hit those with savings more than the poor and the crime figures have been commented by Chavez's government, they admit they are bad and explain how they came about (I've already mentioned this) and will be a priority for the next government, if the socialists are re-elected anyway.

I think you forget the enormous pressures being exerted on any non-conformist government - just surviving is an achievement - something he didn't do personally, alas. We have just see Libya destroyed and it's leader murdered, Syria is in a state of civil war, vilified permanently by the US government and it's European lapdogs, Iran is subjected to extraordinary economic sanctions for not toeing the line, Cuba has been under a totally unjustified blockade for decades, with the USA pressuring other countries to follow suit. Any company that trades with Cuba, even those not US owned are subject to sanctions. If all this is not illegal it's only because the justice system of the world is dominated by the dominators of the world too!

So maybe it's not perfect but the courage of people like Chavez and his supporters, of Morales in Bolivia, and so many others from Arafat to Allende is enormous... just staying alive becomes a real problem when you challenge the dominant world order, so I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, what he and his comrades have achieved is quite extraordinary, that they haven't created paradise yet can hardly be held against them. What major, positive social changes has Britain managed over the same period and which country has caused the most harm to others?
redsonja - on 11 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker: totally agree with your last sentance, but venezuela was a better country before chavez
off-duty - on 11 Mar 2013
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

As I said before admirable though it might be it's a lot easier to introduce positive social change from a position of abject poverty than to make social change in a country where things aren't THAT bad. We can't reinvent the welfare state or the NHS.
That is coupled by having to fund changes by charging tax rather than just pouring oil money at the problem
Enty - on 11 Mar 2013
In reply to off-duty:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker)
>
> As I said before admirable though it might be it's a lot easier to introduce positive social change from a position of abject poverty than to make social change in a country where things aren't THAT bad. We can't reinvent the welfare state or the NHS.
> That is coupled by having to fund changes by charging tax rather than just pouring oil money at the problem

I think you're spot on with this. I was sick to death last week of people brown nosing Chavez on Facebook.
My pet cat could bring round social change if you gave it a trillion barrels of oil to sell.

E
MG - on 11 Mar 2013
In reply to Enty:

> My pet cat could bring round social change if you gave it a trillion barrels of oil to sell.


Are you sure it wouldn't just go to sleep on a barrel?
Douglas Griffin - on 11 Mar 2013
In reply to Enty:

> My pet cat could bring round social change if you gave it a trillion barrels of oil to sell.

There are plenty of oil-producing countries in the world that have managed not to.
Bruce Hooker - on 11 Mar 2013
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to off-duty)

> My pet cat could bring round social change if you gave it a trillion barrels of oil to sell.
>

Maybe your cat could but those who run many mineral rich countries don't seem to be able to... Nigeria, the Congo, Iraq etc.

Perhaps you should advertise your cat in the appropriate publications read by rulers of such countries?

MJ - on 11 Mar 2013
In reply to Enty:

My pet cat could bring round social change if you gave it a trillion barrels of oil to sell.

...or it might just turn into yet another Fat Cat?
Enty - on 11 Mar 2013
In reply to MJ:
> (In reply to Enty)
>
> My pet cat could bring round social change if you gave it a trillion barrels of oil to sell.
>
> ...or it might just turn into yet another Fat Cat?

It's already fat sod and costing us thousands.

E
Gudrun - on 17 Mar 2013
In reply to heidi123:
> (In reply to Bruce Hooker) totally agree with your last sentance, but venezuela was a better country before chavez

And you are an unreconstructed idiot.
Dauphin - on 17 Mar 2013
In reply to Papillon:

I find it a bit of a contradiction when socialist countries go in for the personality cult thing.

'the strong man' seems to be a meme in worldwide political leadership - it isn't confined to socialists or communists.

D

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.