No, I meant to criticise them in General.34thcell said:
Hugo Chavez
- Thread starter donperkan
- Start date
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
34thcell said:
When it's someone I like, it's OK, but when I don't like them it's bad, is that it?
No, that's not what you said. But it's the logical conclusion of that kind of attitude. Corruption is bad. Period.
I mean, are we really going to argue that Transparency International and Reporter Sans Frontières, which are among the most respectable NGOs on the planet, have an hidden anti-Chavez agenda? You say that it was worse before Chavez came to power, yet corruption is more rampant than ever, crime rate has doubled (homicides have tripled) and press freedom has been neutered. Does it erase his other good deeds, no of course not. But denying that the man's rule had it's fair share of bad sides is as stupid as demonizing him as the second coming of Satan.
Evil Neville
First time out of the vault
Ilosar said:
That's probably the reason why no one here is doing it.
Here's some of the data about Venezuela since Chavez came to power, both positive and negative ones:
• Unemployment has dropped from 14.5% of the total labour force in 1999 to 7.6% in 2009
• Population has increased from 23,867,000 in 1999 to 29,278,000 in 2011. The annual population growth was 1.5% in 2011 compared with 1.9% in 1999
• GDP per capita has risen from $4,105 to $10,801 in 2011
• Venezuela's inflation has fluctuated since 1999. Inflation now stands at 31.6% compared with 23.6% in 1999
• Poverty has decreased - in 1999, 23.4% of the population were recorded as being in extreme poverty, this fell to 8.5% in 2011
• Infant mortality is now lower than in 1999 - from a rate of 20 per 1,000 live births then to a rate of 13 per 1,000 live births in 2011
• Violence has been a key concern in Venezuela for some time - figures from the UNODC state that the murder rate has risen since 1999. In 2011 the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 population was 45.1 compared with 25.0 twelve years earlier
• Oil exports have boomed - Venezuela has one of the top proven oil reserves in the world and in 2011 Opec put the country's net oil export revenues at $60bn. In 1999 it stood at $14.4bn
Sources: World Bank, UNHCR, Reuters, OPEC, EIA, IMF, UNODC and INE
The only notable negativity that sticks out is the murder rate. Murder rate, from say 19 to 45 intentional murders on each 100 thousand. It is a horrific figure, but we have to pay attention when the spiral kick off more viciously, and I will consider 2002 as key year, where the institutional stability was compromised by the opposition in Venezuela and Colombia started their “demobilization” of paramilitaries. Many of them just disappear from Colombia and move into Venezuela and carry out business as usual. I wouldn't say that all criminality is due to this cause, but a new fashion and vicious techniques were instantaneously imported for the disgrace of the Venezuelan family. Chavez react with ordinary measures to an extraordinary problem. It is not until 2006 that Chavez could get the key strings of the problems and manage to build a new structural solution that gave Venezuela sustainable reduction of crimes without the estate brutal human rights abuses.
This battle of “sources” on who is telling the true, and this constant jogging all the time against sets of data which are derivate from customised polls and estimations based on generic criterion is not helping the analysis. Many Venezuelan NGO’s (some US back paid) that are supposedly organised to overlook the government, ends in a pseudo-debunker tendency that frankly only serve invested interest, and do not pursuit the understanding of reality and its transformation into something better. I guess that is the next chapter, after the elections.
Ilosar said:
No it's not and I didn't say any of that. Only that equal amounts of corruption can produce very different results, so it doesn't necessarily say much if Venezuela has this level of corruption; you have to look at outcomes. Other countries have done far worse with much less corruption. In Venezuela's case I suspect actual policy, not corruption, has caused the most economic damage.
Evil Neville said:
The same thing has happened in all neighbouring countries, including Colombia and the like (their numbers are at least equal and often even better), while
this hasn't.
Explain that. C'mon. Explain it.
Also,
hah!
Evil Neville
First time out of the vault
Oh really, in ALL neighbouring countries? OFTEN even better? Care to back that up with actual data like I did?
Yes it has, and I just gave you the numbers. Look it up yourself.
Yes, I even used the data from the sources that have, let's put it lightly, some political bias, lol, to appease you, and it still looks good.
donperkan
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
A large part of the oil money ends up on some ones personal account. Chavez put little effort in fighting corruption inside his nation, that and the never ending struggle to hold power are his two major flaws.
Ignore that and he was a great ruler. I wish we had more politicians like him. Politics is boring, he and al-Gaddafy where one of the few interesting characters.
Ignore that and he was a great ruler. I wish we had more politicians like him. Politics is boring, he and al-Gaddafy where one of the few interesting characters.
Evil Neville
First time out of the vault
donperkan said:A large part of the oil money ends up on some ones personal account. Chavez put little effort in fighting corruption inside his nation, that and the never ending struggle to hold power are his two major flaws.
Ignore that and he was a great ruler. I wish we had more politicians like him. Politics is boring, he and al-Gaddafy where one of the few interesting characters.
We still got
Lols will be had.
Evil Neville said:
You're cute. Really. You're so incredibly naive when it comes to backing up your point, you just charge in without checking any sources. You remind me of myself when I was 15-16... So young and impressionable, and sure that the fire of my conviction would render any disproving evidence mere sideshows compared to my brilliant oratory skills.
Anyway, I'm not going to do all countries in the region, because ain't nobody got time for that. I'm just gonna do Colombia.
I just copy from the UN Human Development index report (2011)
HDI Index
Venezuela: 0.735
Colombia: 0.710
Life expectancy at birth
Venezuela: 74.4
Colombia: 73.7
Mean years of schooling
Venezuela: 7.6
Colombia: 7.3
GNP per Capita (PPP)
Venezuela: 10,656
Colombia: 8,315
As you can see, the differences are minimal. For comparison, here are some of the other Latin American countries' HDI:
Chile: 0.805
Argentina: 0.797
Uruguay: 0.783
Cuba: 0.776
Mexico: 0.770
Panama: 0.768
Peru: 0.725
Ecuador: 0.720
Brazil: 0.718
So, comparable or better.
But what is the main difference? Oh right.
Venezuelan oil exports: 1,871,000 barrels (2009 est.)
Colombian oil exports: 400,700 barrels (2009 est.)
So, explain to me why Colombia managed to get on the whole comparable stats when the have less than a fourth of the Venezuelan oil exports, a latent civil war, and massive narcotics problems? Oh right.
2012 corruption index
Venezuela: nr. 165 out of 174 (score: 19)
Colombia: nr. 94 out of 174 (score: 36)
For comparison, in 1998, before Chavez came to power, Colombia was more corrupt than Venezuela. Now, after fifteen years of Chavez, Venezuela is one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
Corruption is the very definition of bad government, from which all other problems flow. Chavez is practically the poster child of corruption.
Evil Neville
First time out of the vault
Well would you look at that. It turns out that ALL THOSE NEIGHBOURING countries that are supposedly doing the same or OFTEN better numbers are in reality often doing worse, even in your cherry-picked data (totally haven't noticed that you selected only the colombian statistics that don't look as horribly worse compared to venezuelan, even if they are worse in the end). Also, very amused at your saying that a 20% difference in GNP is a "minimal difference", hope you're trolling. What a shocking turn of events. Damn you Chavez, damn you to hell.
This thread better not start any shit about Peru >:I
Altho Peru was a thorough shithole untill recently, shithole as in gvt sanctioned massacres of civilians and stuff like that...
No! No shit about Peru I said!
Altho Peru was a thorough shithole untill recently, shithole as in gvt sanctioned massacres of civilians and stuff like that...
No! No shit about Peru I said!
Evil Neville said:
Apparently, you can't read economic data and draw conclusions well (shocker!).
Of course Venezuelan GDP per capita is higher, they have all those oil exports. HOWEVER, with a lower GDP per capita, Colombia manages to do nearly as well in practically every field. SO, with at least 20% less money, they do nearly equally well.
In other words, the fact that Venezuelan GDP is higher is not a good thing when it comes to Chavez' performance.
For instance, Serbia's GDP per capita is $11.883 - lower than Venezuela's - yet their HDI is 0.766, much higher than Venezuela's.
So apparently, Serbia is a fuck of a lot better at "socialism of the 21st century" than Venezuela is, since the Serbian state offers their citizens a lot more support, development and social benefits than Venezuela does with less money. A LOT less money, probably, since Serbia doesn't have gigantic nationalised oil companies (whose profits go directly to the state).
Also, considering Venezuelan oil exports are four times higher, and difference in GDP is only 20%, that also means that Venezuela has a much weaker economy (except for the oil) than Colombia. Also a bad thing.
You say you hope I'm trolling - cute - I say I hope for your sake you're only 16 or so, otherwise you're a pretty badly educated adult.
Also, "cherrypicking". Heh. AFAIK, all the mayor Latin American country's HDI are there. You think, say, Trinidad & Tobago's figures are essential or something?
Evil Neville
First time out of the vault
Jebus said:
You on the other hand have shown your astonishing expertise.
So? Is that supposed to be negative? Should they cut their oil exports so thier GDP falls? I don't get what you're trying to say. Their GDP is 20% higher then Colombia's and that's all that I was saying. You're just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
No they don't, and it's not even funny. These are some of the Chavez's accomplishments.
-A variety of social reforms have been implemented under Hugo Chavez - most of them paid for by revenue from the country's nationalised oil industry - and have had a real impact on the lives of Venezuela's poor.
-The government has increased the amount of money spent on education, leading to a 50% increase in the primary education enrollment rate.
-The government also introduced universal healthcare in 1999, increasing the number of doctors TWELVEFOLD while constructing several thousand additional health centres. Infant mortality has dropped and life expectancy has increased.
-There has been a 50% drop in the poverty rate from 49% in 1998 to 24% in 2009. And there has been a 2/3 drop in extreme poverty rates, down from 21% in 1998 to 7.2 per cent in 2009.
And now compare that to what Colombia did in the last 15 years.
That notion could be applicable if we weren't talking about two countries on the different sides of the globe, with two absolutely uncomparable geopolitical positions and if the connection between GDP and HDI was somehow set in stone and formulaicly calculated. I also love how when you talked about the gap between the colombian and venezuelan HDI's you called the difference "minimal" because it favoured Venezuela. But when talknig about the practically same difference between Serbia and Venezuela, you call it "much higher" because it doesn't favour Venezuela.
Yeah, it doesn't work like that. A four times difference in oil exports unfortunately doesn't mean a four times GDP difference except if you live in the magical land of Oz. Economy is a tad bit more complicated then 3th grader math. Would be great if it worked like that, though. Pretty dope.
I consider myself a fairly well educated adult, thank you very much, even if most of my education didn't come from Bill O'Reilly.
I thought I made myself pretty clear that the cherrypicking comment was directed at the colombian data you chose. And even then it backfired because they sucked more then venezuelan. You need to up your reading comprehension skills. Read that post again.
Yes, the man's rule significantly reduced extreme poverty by making the extremely poor just poor and the poor less poor through lots of social programs (the 10 times higher income from oil prices than the previous government have little to do with it). And, that's pretty much it, everything else is needlessly worse, irrelevant or propaganda.
- Much, much worse crime rates (rampaging crazy shit level)
- Absurd corruption levels
- Shittier economy (inflation steadily increasing, constant lack of products, rationing, lower quality products in general)
- Worse services and infrastructure all around (electricity rationing, water rationing, major roads and several important bridges have collapsed, even oil related infrastructure accidents have increased)
- General atmosphere of hatred and conflict, abuse of power, absurd impunity and absolute lack of justice (a lot of monstrosities go unpunished by the 'justice system')
- etc, etc...
- Much, much worse crime rates (rampaging crazy shit level)
- Absurd corruption levels
- Shittier economy (inflation steadily increasing, constant lack of products, rationing, lower quality products in general)
- Worse services and infrastructure all around (electricity rationing, water rationing, major roads and several important bridges have collapsed, even oil related infrastructure accidents have increased)
- General atmosphere of hatred and conflict, abuse of power, absurd impunity and absolute lack of justice (a lot of monstrosities go unpunished by the 'justice system')
- etc, etc...
Considering how much corruption there's in a so called "democratic" system, we really shouldn't be pointing fingers at others when we got worse problems ourselves...
Thinking of weapons manufacturing companies bribing governments/senators/other politicians for contracts to sell them dangerous (for the users) equipment, healthcare scandals created by "care-bear" companies that were putting on used diapers on elderly people and whatnot, just to name a few examples.
Thinking of weapons manufacturing companies bribing governments/senators/other politicians for contracts to sell them dangerous (for the users) equipment, healthcare scandals created by "care-bear" companies that were putting on used diapers on elderly people and whatnot, just to name a few examples.
<object width="420" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j3-lIOO5KYE?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j3-lIOO5KYE?hl=en_US&version=3&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
Evil Neville said:
As I noted before, schooling rates and life expectancy are pretty much comparable in Colombia. The specific social reforms don't matter - and there's no way in hell I'm going to keep a tally of the social reforms inplemented in random Latin American countries over the last 15 years.
No matter what reforms Chavez may (said he) have implemented, no matter how much money he (said he) threw at the problem, life in Venezuela still isn't all that much better than most Latin American countries and significally worse than some. This according to official statistics - most of them based on data compiled by Venezuela's very own national statistics agency.
So what do you call someone who, with a lot more money at his disposal than other people, gets the same or only slightly better results? Incompetent. Corrupt. Those kinds of things.
Evil Neville said:
What does the position on the globe or "geopolitical position" matter for shit? Are people inherently better and less corrupt in Europe, is that what you're saying? Why sir, I do believe that's racist.
Also, Serbia's geopolitical position isn't something to write home about either. They had a couple of wars, civil wars and ethnic cleansings in the last few decades, as you may remember. And I don't think bombed-out infrastructure and public buildings does a lot of good for human development either.
And yeah, mea culpa for using the word "much" inappropriately and hence proving Chavez is actually Jezus Christ².
Evil Neville said:
Oh yes it does. If you look at the top ten of countries with the highest GDP (PPP) in the world you'll see countries like Qatar, Norway, Brunei and United Arab Emirates (and Kuwait at #11). Do you think those countries are there because of their camel breeding or logging industries?
Now, the fewer people you'll have in a country the more influence oil is going to have on GDP numbers, of course. That's why countries like Qatar are up there in the first place.
So hey, Colombia has oil exports of 400,700 barrels for 46 million people and Venzuela has oil exports of 1,871,000 barrels for 29 million people. That means Venezuela's GDP is much more dependant on oil than Colombia is, which infers that - outside oil - Venzuela's economy is much weaker than Colombia's. Let's compare their export treemaps, for instance:
Venezuela
Colombia
(click pictures for legend)
See the difference? Venezuela's economy is pretty much all oil.
If you vote for the rivals of Chavez' successor, you're going to be cursed by a centuries-old curse.
How democratic they are.
How democratic they are.