A Thoughtful Response - Part I
Hey Folks,
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response. Here is Part I. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
According to a group of interviews conducted by Benjamin Dangl on Alternet (www.alternet.org): "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez, but the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer," he continued. "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home. There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela ... I think there is a movement to 'Cubanize' many sectors of Venezuela. This is impossible because there is not an ideological or philosophical revolution going on here. It is just populism." It's nice to have an opinion, but it's good to do homework on that opinion.
I’m sorry, I tried but I could not find the specific interviews referenced here. We soldier on.
There is a lot to consider in this paragraph. First is the thought that I should do my homework on my opinion; which assumes I haven’t.
Well, I don’t claim to be an expert or a scholar, BUT I have been following the Venezuelan situation for a long time. In addition to reading the regular and alternative press, I’ve attended a meeting at Ohio State University where the issues were discussed and debated by a spectrum of people, including well-to-do Venezuelans.
Whether that constitutes ENOUGH homework is open to debate.
Secondly, it seems clear from the quotation, that the evidence challenging my “opinion” is itself opinion. What does it mean: "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez”? Before Chavez, 80% of the people were poor. Who would expect them to suddenly be “rich”? The question is “Are they better off?” Based on several elections, it seems the majority of the people think they are. Maybe not rich, but better off. And “the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer” certainly hasn’t been demonstrated as anything more than opinion (although I think it’s a safe bet that the rich aren’t happy).
What is the sense of "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home”? If a negative balance of payments constitutes poverty, then the United States is in BIG trouble.
Then there’s: “There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela.”
Well, sure. But that’s how economic imperialism works. Foreign imperialists will invest in your country, and if you play ball, allowing THEM to enrich themselves at the expense of your countrymen, they’ll take care of YOU, the top 20% or so.
But if you drop the ball, they lose interest, stop or withdraw their investments, and make life tougher for YOU until the rabble gets whipped back into shape. The “insecure economic future” is pressing on international capitalists and definitely on their Venezuelan collaborators, but – at the worst – no more on the poor than before Chavez. AND, with a government acting as if it cares more about the masses than the elite, there IS hope of the people’s lot being improved, certainly more so than under the old elite policies.
My History homework informs me that a rich minority hates any changes that threaten their favored position, and will say and do just about anything to preserve it (e.g. see Iraqi Sunnis or the Family of Saud ).
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response. Here is Part I. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
According to a group of interviews conducted by Benjamin Dangl on Alternet (www.alternet.org): "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez, but the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer," he continued. "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home. There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela ... I think there is a movement to 'Cubanize' many sectors of Venezuela. This is impossible because there is not an ideological or philosophical revolution going on here. It is just populism." It's nice to have an opinion, but it's good to do homework on that opinion.
I’m sorry, I tried but I could not find the specific interviews referenced here. We soldier on.
There is a lot to consider in this paragraph. First is the thought that I should do my homework on my opinion; which assumes I haven’t.
Well, I don’t claim to be an expert or a scholar, BUT I have been following the Venezuelan situation for a long time. In addition to reading the regular and alternative press, I’ve attended a meeting at Ohio State University where the issues were discussed and debated by a spectrum of people, including well-to-do Venezuelans.
Whether that constitutes ENOUGH homework is open to debate.
Secondly, it seems clear from the quotation, that the evidence challenging my “opinion” is itself opinion. What does it mean: "Venezuelan people have not become richer with Chavez”? Before Chavez, 80% of the people were poor. Who would expect them to suddenly be “rich”? The question is “Are they better off?” Based on several elections, it seems the majority of the people think they are. Maybe not rich, but better off. And “the poor are now happy to see the rich become poorer” certainly hasn’t been demonstrated as anything more than opinion (although I think it’s a safe bet that the rich aren’t happy).
What is the sense of "Rich people are poorer because with Chavez's politics we are buying more things from the exterior than we produce at home”? If a negative balance of payments constitutes poverty, then the United States is in BIG trouble.
Then there’s: “There are also fewer investments in the country due to fears investors have about unclear policies and an insecure economic future in Venezuela.”
Well, sure. But that’s how economic imperialism works. Foreign imperialists will invest in your country, and if you play ball, allowing THEM to enrich themselves at the expense of your countrymen, they’ll take care of YOU, the top 20% or so.
But if you drop the ball, they lose interest, stop or withdraw their investments, and make life tougher for YOU until the rabble gets whipped back into shape. The “insecure economic future” is pressing on international capitalists and definitely on their Venezuelan collaborators, but – at the worst – no more on the poor than before Chavez. AND, with a government acting as if it cares more about the masses than the elite, there IS hope of the people’s lot being improved, certainly more so than under the old elite policies.
My History homework informs me that a rich minority hates any changes that threaten their favored position, and will say and do just about anything to preserve it (e.g. see Iraqi Sunnis or the Family of Saud ).
- Uke Man
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home