Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez surprised no one with this announcement on Monday during the swearing-in ceremony for his new cabinet.
During his speech, Chávez also confirmed the “nationalization” of Venezuelan telecomm company, CANTV, which was one-third owned by American telephone giant Verizon, and of the American-owned Caracas electric utility.
Originally owned by the Venezuelan government, CANTV was privatized in 1991 because of inefficiency and its unwieldy, bloated organizational bureaucracy. At that time, Verizon paid $1.8 billion for its stake. According to Gerver Torres, the former Venezuelan cabinet minister who handled the transaction for the government, Verizon’s share was worth an estimated $3.5 billion on Monday, just before the Chávez announcement plunged its stock price 40% on the NYSE, when the Exchange halted trading.
According to Reuters, “[IBC], the [Venezuelan] stock market, lost almost a fifth of its value on Tuesday, debt prices tumbled to a six-week low and the currency changed hands at nearly twice the official rate.”
Reaction from the White House was relatively muted as Administration officials continue to work behind the scenes to initiate a dialogue with Chávez. “Nationalization has a long and inglorious history of failure around the world,” said Press Secretary Tony Snow. “We support the Venezuelan people and think this is an unhappy day for them.”
With these actions, Chávez continues his impersonation of his mentor, Fidel Castro, whose reign in Cuba has transformed that island nation from one of the most vibrant and prosperous countries in the Americas to one of the poorest, with its people among the most oppressed in the region.
As he continues to build his already considerable power, Chávez also outlined a plan to consolidate his supporter base into a single political party, as well as plans to bring the autonomous Central Bank directly under his control. He is also seeking an end to constitutional term limits as part of his plan to drag Venezuela into his version of “21st Century Socialism.”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - D'oh
Well written Clavos. We will see how it all plays out,and in the end if the entirety of the population winds up better off, or worse.
So far, it appears some are taking a hurting (those upper income folks, and participants in the Venezuelan stock market), and some better (the natives who have received better education and health care under this regime).
Does Chavez go from a hybrid socialism to full out communism? If so, failure is almost assured.
But if he can find a decent balance, and refrain from "president for life", some real good can come out of it.
Only time will tell, but the natural resources of the country gives him definite advantages over Fidel's fiasco when it comes to improving life for the poorest citizens.
Still and all, I've not much confidence in the long term, and can only hope that all runs it's course without too much damage done to that country.
2 - Clavos
Thanks, D'oh.
I'm impressed by your analysis; I think the only point I would argue is how much good he has actually done for the poor, VS how much of what we've heard is his PR machine product.
I do know there are half-finished projects on which work was halted when the decline in oil prices began.
The main thing that worries me about him is that, with each succeeding speech he's turning more leftward. He actually did say "I am a Communist" at the swearing-in of his cabinet on Monday.
3 - D'oh
The good I know about concerns teaching folks to read, with the cynical motive that then they would be eligible to vote, that being the law there.
To me, that's a good thing, and goes a long way as long as folks don't start getting killed by secret police.
As I said, time will tell, there remains the potential for some good, and a distinct possibility of sever fuck ups.
But in the end, the folks there are getting what they voted for, and that's how democracy works. As long as the ballots are clean and fair, it ain't nobody's business but their own.
4 - troll
I hope that the US government doesn't contribute to the severe fuck up as it has such a habit of doing in latin America
5 - D'oh
So say we all, troll.
6 - Clavos
D'oh,
Again, one small quibble. You say,
it ain't nobody's business but their own.
To which, in principle I agree completely.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chávez is not content with bringing his "Bolivarian Revolution" just to Venezuela... Besides Nicaragua, he's also trying to export his ideas to Bolivia and Ecuador.
7 - D'oh
Good point, Clavos. Let me riff on it a bit.
As long as it's the bully pulpit and diplomacy, it is still well within the rights of a democratically elected leader to speak his mind. The very clear line would be fermenting revolt by supplying lawyers, guns and money to insurgents in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate government. Which I don't think he has tried to do yet.
It's stepping over that line that would de-legitimize him and his regime, otherwise it remains well within acceptable boundaries to speak out and talk to his neighbors.
At least he hasn't sent troops in to overthrow a government and publicly stated his goal of spreading his political philosophy by use of force, unlike some other national leader we know.
Big difference between diplomacy (talking) and the use of troops (invasions).
8 - Dave Nalle
I still think the title should read "I am a Communist Dictator" - truth in advertising.
Dave
9 - Zedd
But the people love him and they STILL are doing much better economically then they ever have. Sad isn't it. Democracy at work.
Yet we vote for Bush, loose international respect, contribute to the death of several hundreds of thousands foriegners and feel content. Because we are good and we are right. Oh dictatorship is good when we want to dictate to soverign nations.
10 - Clavos
D'oh #7:
Sorry for the long response time; had to take my wife to her PT.
I see where you're going in #7, and am inclined to agree.
What is worrisome is his recent importation of 100,000 Kalashnikovs, and his inking a deal with Putin to build a factory to make them in Venezuela.
The 100,00: OK.
But, the factory?
He just doesn't have a need for that many ARs.
11 - dilbert
Chavez has support of over 2/3's of the population (obviously insignificant to you people) and was recently elected by a 23% margin. As you all know, and chose to ignore, the previous governments didn't pay attention to the poor even though they were the vast majority of the population. I'm not going to respond to your "analysis", as the above poster put it, because there wasn't any analysis. You said some platitudes and quoted the people with the ideology of previous governments. The clause that he wants to put in the constitution that would allow him to be elected indefinitely is very democratic. His plan, which again you didn't mention, is to recall himself and put the idea up for national referendum. So, if passed, you couldn't blame him for it becoming law, it would be the Venezuelan people who would support it. Whether you people like their decision is irrelevant and any other government to intervening for any reason would be anti-democratic.
About Cuba: they certainly are a tightly controlled country, Castro’s human rights record is horrible, in PART because of his orthodox Marxist ideology. However, can you name a country on earth who has been the subject of more covert attacks than Cuba has at the hands of the US? What would the US do, especially with a nut job like Bush in power, if, say, China has been doing the same to us for decades? Do you think we would have fewer freedoms as a result? We all know the answer.
Also, are they any worse than our biggest ally in the region, Columbia? Columbia receives the most aid in Latin America from the US, is fascistly right wing and has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere (with more union leaders killed there last year than the rest of the world combined). Cuba, for all its faults, has the best healthcare and educational systems in Latin America, is on the path to being fully self sufficient in agriculture (something other Latin American countries can only dream about), based on organic produce, and has accomplished this despite the decades long US blockade and not a single penny from the IMF or World Bank (the only country in Latin America to do so). Of course, not taking funds from those parasitic institutions might be the reason they’ve done better than other countries in the region.
Just a couple questions to you all: Venezuela is the most participatory government in Latin America (if you want proof I will provide links). Can any of you point out other countries that are right wing or "pro-free market" who can say the same? If so, which ones? Also, you said that Cuba is the poorest country in the region. Name the countries better off in Latin America and the Caribbean and provide proof to back up your argument. Please don’t use per capita income as your argument by the way. It says absolutely nothing about people at the micro level. Please provide proof. I will if you take me up on the question.
It’s one thing to disagree ideologically. It’s another to pretend that what is happening in Venezuela is a result of one man, as opposed to the general population.
Sorry to interrupt though, back to your emotionally pleasing platitudes and "analysis".
12 - Clavos
Chavez has support of over 2/3's of the population (obviously insignificant to you people) and was recently elected by a 23% margin.
That would be the 2/3 to whom he has promised the sun, the moon and the stars. OF COURSE they're voting for him. So far, he's talked a good talk, but hasn't delivered much beyond rhetoric; he still has one of the largest poor classes (as a percentage of the total population) in the region. We'll see how long they continue to support him if he doesn't start delivering soon.
Also, are they any worse than our biggest ally in the region, Columbia? Columbia receives the most aid in Latin America from the US, is fascistly right wing and has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere
If you're going to write about the region, it would be nice if you learned the names of the countries.
COLOMBIA has an incredibly grave problem with the drug cartels. Being a judge in Colombia is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. They ARE making progress against the narcotraficantes, and the US aid you sneer at is a major reason they're able to do so.
Colombia is literally under siege from neighboring countries, especially including Venezuela and Ecuador. The paramilitary rebels and drug traffickers are given free passage over the borders (Colombia's are twice as long as the US/Mexico border) and sanctuary by these countries, as well.
Colombia's human rights record is not good in large part because of the intensity of the activity of both the traffickers and the rebel groups. That doesn't excuse the government's actions, but it does explain them.
(Cuba) has accomplished this despite the decades long US blockade and not a single penny from the IMF or World Bank
But with billions from Russia.
The blockade actually helps Fidel:
It gives him a boogeyman on whom to blame his own failings. It also enables him to keep the people totally dependent on the paltry largesse from the government, thus helping him to maintain his control of them.
Also, you said that Cuba is the poorest country in the region. Name the countries better off in Latin America and the Caribbean
You're kidding. For decades, Cuba lived off the dole from Russia; now Chávez is supporting them. He's already sent them $2 billion.
Practically all of them. You didn't want per capita income, so here's the list, based on GDP (Purchasing Power Parity), according to the CIA Fact Book:
COUNTRY AND WORLD RANK
Brasil 12
Mexico 15
Argentina 23
Colombia 30
Chile 46
Peru 50
Venezuela 53
Dominican Republic 72
Ecuador 74
Guatemala 75
Costa Rica 82
Cuba 89
Rankings are estimated from 2005.
13 - STM
Better still Clav would be to rank them in order of their standard of living ... GDP per capita, far more telling.
Then they would all be way down the list. The truth is, Latin America is far from a success story, and in reality, with the kind of natural resources it has collectively, should be a power house.
14 - Clavos
Here you go, Stan. There are some surprises here.
FYI, Dilbert's original challenge was to list all LatAm and Caribbean countries richer than Cuba.
Again from the CIA World Fact Book:
GDP PER CAPITA WORLD RANK
COUNTRY RANK
Cayman Islands 5
USA 7 (For reference)
British Virgin islands 11
Australia 19 (for Stan)
Aruba 48
The Bahamas 52
Barbados 60
Trinidad & Tobago 61
Netherlands Antilles 64
US Virgin Islands 67
Martinique 68
Argentina 70
Chile 80
Costa Rica 83
Mexico 87
Uruguay 88
Brasil 96
Colombia 102
Dominican Republic 108
Panama 109
Belize 117
Suriname 119
Venezuela 120
Peru 124
Saint Lucia 134
El Salvador 135
Guatemala 138
Paraguay 139
Guyana 140
Jamaica 141
Ecuador 144
Grenada 147
Dominica 152
St, Vincent and the Grenadines 155
Cuba 156
15 - STM
Yes, that changes the picture somewhat. I do think it's a tragedy that countries such as Argentina, once upon a time compared to Australia as a wealthy primary producer and full of hope and potential, have allowed the distractions of insane political manoeuvreings to ruin their economies.
Moonraven can say what she likes about our great and wonderful institutions, but for all our faults, they do guarantee genuine democracy - as far as one can realistically have that in what have by neccessity become two-party systems - and nail down the kinds of personal rights and freedoms others can only dream of.
The reason: they were all designed from the outset to guarantee personal freedoms (going back to the Magna Carta, and earlier) and have evolved with stability a key, along with a collective realisation that everything comes second to the democratic process and the rights that affords.
I don't see any of that stuff being put in place in Venezuela, or in too many other parts of Latin America.
16 - Zedd
dilbert
Who are you? You actually have a brain. I was contiplating leaving BC just today because I thought that I was wading in a wasteland and became afraid that I would end up content with the lack of contiplation that is rampent on these threads.
THANK YOU.
17 - Clavos
Yes, that changes the picture somewhat. I do think it's a tragedy that countries such as Argentina, once upon a time compared to Australia as a wealthy primary producer and full of hope and potential, have allowed the distractions of insane political manoeuvreings to ruin their economies.
Yes, Argentina is truly a disappointment. I first visited it in about 1971; it already had gone downhill from its heyday then, but it's worse now.
Did you know there was a Harrod's in Buenos Aires? I was told it was the only one outside of the UK when it opened in 1913. But, in the 40s, it split away from UK Harrod's and is now closed altogether.
I have several clients in Argentina. Interestingly, they all keep their boats here in Florida. One tells me that he's afraid to keep the boat in BA. Because of the kidnapping problem, it would make him a target.
18 - STM
Doesn't surprise me about the Harrod's ... many Argentinians are of British descent (although not many would go now, I think).
Rugby is still played in Argentina (and nicely too), and there are cricket clubs still. You will find plenty of Juan Smiths, I suspect.
But, yeah, I have a mate who plays international rugby and he says while BA is beautiful (and one of the safer cities of South America), he never feels totally safe when he goes there.
Great horses though!
19 - Ted
Thanks Dilbert for adding some truth to this blog.
Calling Chavez a dictator after all of his landslide election victories shows blindness by the poster of that idiotic claim. Regarding communism, to some of us, Capitalist is as dirty of a word as Communist is to others. So much for the impact of the word usage. I'm amazed that no one takes issue with the 300 years of rule by the elite who created all of that poverty and disenfrancisment that plagues Venezuela. When a socialist democratically elected president hasn't solved all of his nations problems in a few years, oh my the outrage! It's called hypocracy folks.
20 - Dave Nalle
Ted. Let me ask you three questions:
Has Chavez shut down the opposition press and arrested journalists?
Has Chavez seized private property without due process of law?
Does Chavez plan to remain in power indefinitely?
If the answer to all three of these is 'yes' - and it is unless you're a spinning shill - then he's a dictator.
Dave
21 - STM
It's all true Ted ... he's really just another South American populist dictator in the Peron mould pretending to be a benevolent socialist leader.
In my view he's not benevolent, he's not really a socialist (and if he were, I would have no problem with it), and he's not a true leader - as he's leading his bloody country down the garden path for his own ends.
22 - Dilbert
As I said in my post, because that's always the right's answer & I knew you’d use it, per capita income says nothing, by itself, about the health of the vast majority of the people in a country. Let's say I have 1 dollar to my name. A person worth a million walks into the room. Our per capita income is now 500,000.50. By your logic, we're both rich, although we're obviously not. Can I, with my 1 dollar, afford healthcare? Can I afford to send my kids to school? Save for retirement? No. If there are no social programs, I can’t afford to eat while the millionaire can eat caviar, in a five star hotel, while sniffing coke, good coke, off a stripper’s ass…and that’s just to get the night started. Does that millionaire work hard for that money? Maybe, but not usually. In all likelihood, he was born rich, hires a broker who increases his wealth by clicking a mouse on his computer. These are the investors that run everything, and democracy shouldn’t make their lives hard.
Next to your per capita income numbers, put the percentage of the population that lives in poverty, and extreme poverty, in each country. Give percentages on access to healthcare and education. Then give the amount of natural resources in those countries, Brazil is a great example. The amount of under-development is staggering. If you were objective and not rigid ideologically, you'd see that.
You want to mention the help Cuba got from the USSR, and now Chavez? Again, how much in military aid alone does the US give Columbia? How many billions in loans have these countries received as a result of implementing "austere" programs by financial institutions like the IMF? Do they have healthcare, educational and agricultural systems like Cuba, available to more than a minority of the population? Do the people in those countries benefit even a fraction as much as international investors from resources in these countries? Come on.
At least Chavez is attempting something that might. Cuba has provided both a good & bad example for countries at the developmental stage that Venezuela is in. What I’m talking about is the good.
23 - Dilbert
Dave:
Provide links as to who has been put in jail and which stations have been shut down. Do they have ties to groups and individuals, many in the US, who have called for and supported un-democratic removal of Chavez in the past? If China was funding stations to call for the overthrow of Bush and hired reporters to do the same, what would Bush do? Would you blame him? What is the difference here? I don't blindly follow anyone. If Chavez was who you say was, I'd change my mind. His isn't, the picture you paint doesn't have logic or fact to back it up.
The property he seized was not being used and was owned by a very small fraction of the country. Countries do not develop without land reform. To do so would be unprecedented. I also don't think a situation where 1% of a population owns 80% of the wealth is just. There's no justification differences in wealth like that.
As i said above, what he plans on doing is recalling himself, putting himself on the ballot under the stipulation that he can elected as many times as the Venezuelan people chose but can be voted out each election cycle. What is your problem with this? Articulate yourself.
Some interesting Adam Smith quotes:
"It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged."
"the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore . . . is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public . . . to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers . . . but to narrow the competition . . . can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
"It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must . . . have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen."
The masters "never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and journeymen.
"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject..."
"Masters too sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy, till the moment of execution, and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do, without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people."
"The policy of Europe, by obstructing the free circulation of labor and stock both from employment to employment, and from place to place, occasions in some cases a very inconvenient inequality . . ."
24 - Zedd
Ted
"Capitalist is as dirty of a word as Communist is to others. So much for the impact of the word"
Thank you Ted!!
Wow, two thinkers on one thread. Beautiful!!
25 - Clavos
Dilbert,
I gave you ample, documented proof that practically every country in Latin America and most of those in the Caribbean are wealthier than Cuba, which was my original assertion. You said in your first post you could provide proof to the contrary; now's the time.
All of your statements so far have been nothing more than typical socialist/communist propaganda. If you want us to believe anything you say, you'll have to provide credible links from neutral, non/socialist sources UNRELATED to Chavez or Castro, which prove the following:
The property he seized was not being used and was owned by a very small fraction of the country. Countries do not develop without land reform. To do so would be unprecedented. I also don't think a situation where 1% of a population owns 80% of the wealth is just.
As i said above, what he plans on doing is recalling himself, putting himself on the ballot under the stipulation that he can elected as many times as the Venezuelan people chose but can be voted out each election cycle.
can you name a country on earth who has been the subject of more covert attacks than Cuba has at the hands of the US?
Cuba, for all its faults, has the best healthcare and educational systems in Latin America, is on the path to being fully self sufficient in agriculture
Venezuela is the most participatory government in Latin America (if you want proof I will provide links) We welcome them.
I could cut-and-paste all day long from Adam Smith as well. Proves nothing.
Show us some verifiable unbiased facts.