Or we could have NOT given them 2 light water reactors in exchange for 20 coal fired power plants given the fact that they needed electricity more than they needed nukes.
There’s a little common sense involved here. They don’t have the economic resources to maintain their own infrastructure. Why supply them with the economic and technological resources to create a nuclear threat to our allies in the region?
To make the claim that we reduced the plutonium produced by supplying them with a plutonium producing power plant is a spurious argument given that they were struggling with the process in the first place. They don’t have the resources to dedicate to a large military program. The Soviet Union collapsed trying to do this and it is reasonable to believe it will eventually happen in NK.
For those who worship at the shrine of St. Ronnie of Bakersfield, who singelhandedly slew the Soviet Dragon, that might seem a marvelous idea. But some of us think that the collapse of a nuclear armed state into anarchy might have some unpleasant consequences. The grave we dance on might be our own.
But not to drag you away from your delightful romp on the awful, terrible, no-good Jimmy Carter…Hugo Chavez? Remember?
I wouldn’t somehow assume that many of the former USSR states are in a situation of anarchy. However, if the position you’re holding onto is that we shouldn’t of defeated the USSR (which internally imploded, not externally) because of the threat of some rogue nukes, then it’s one which isn’t tenable, people wanted out of the Commie experience, and that’s what they eventually got.
Both Chavez and W are careless of human rights, only Chavez (leading a country where such have never been as firmly established as here) has been in a position to get away with more domestic abuses than W. OTOH, Chavez has a lot less innocent blood on his hands than W. Not much to choose between them, on that score. There’s a lot of public corruption under Chavez’ government but, again, I’m not sure he compares unfavorably to W there (or, for that matter, to any of Chavez’ own predecessors in office).
But that sombrer el petroleo policy – a New Deal paid for with oil revenue – seems to be working. Certainly, from the common citizen’s POV, Venezuela’s economy has improved more under Chavez’ administration than America’s under W’s. Chavez wants a more egalitarian society with the nation’s wealth benefitting everybody rather than just the elite; W doesn’t. And Chavez hasn’t made any catastrophic mistakes on the scale of the Iraq War. Nor has he actually taken the elite’s wealth away, only their power. They’re still free to do business.
On balance, Chavez wins. He will go down in history as one of his country’s best presidents – like a more populist version of FDR, or perhaps Huey Long if Long had become president; at any rate, the best since Romulo Betancourt. And W will go down as one of his country’s worst. We’ll be cleaning up his messes for at least a decade after he leaves.
As for elections: Chavez is running for reelection this December, I believe, and there’s little doubt he’ll win. The opposition just is not that popular. Under the 1999 Constitution he is allowed one more six-year term. If he tries to abolish the term limit before 2012, I’ll admit there’s too much of Castro in him.
Wow, that was fast… Only a few weeks into the glorious leader’s new dictatorial term, and he’s already pulling out the thugs to try to beat the economy into submission as it responds naturally to his ridiculous socialist/Marxist policies:
It’s not exactly an economic miracle he’s presiding over, is it? He’s now in the process of creating ‘committees of social control’ - cronies of his who will spy on the population and report any actual honest-to-god market pricing. The punishment will be the nationalization of the offender’s business.
Gee, who’d have thought that price controls would lead to shortages? There’s now a black market in sugar in Venezuela.
Comrades! When the revolution comes, the people will feast on… uh… pork neck bones, rabbit, and ‘unusual cuts of lamb’.
Who would have thought there would be gross mismanagement of production under a command economy?
There are now fears of massive capital flight due to Chavez’s strong-arm tactics and threats to nationalize any business that even vaguely hints that it opposes his policies. All this in the midst of a huge oil boom, which is the only thing still propping up that economy. He’s managed to use oil money to subsidize businesses being wrecked by price controls, which is in essense turning them into state enterprises. He’s diverted more than 50% of oil revenue into his social programs, which in in the long term is going to weaken the oil infrastructure (just like every other dictatorial oil nation seems to do).
In the meantime, his pumping of oil money into the economy to shore up his ridiculous policies is causing an overheating of the economy, 18% inflation, and unsustainable growth in the heavily subsidized sectors. When the money runs out, Venezuela is going to crash violently.
“The Greatest President in Venezuela’s History” is on the fast track to completely destroy what was the most promising economy in Latin America. And all of it was completely predictable.
If his policies don’t work, the Venezuelans can always vote him out. Matter of fact, they could launch a recall vote tomorrow if they wanted. So why are you all het up about it, Sam? I’m pretty sure Chavez isn’t plotting an invasion of the Great White North.
I’m ‘het up about it’ because this is a GREAT DEBATE. We have assertions from people like Brainglutton that this time, Marxism/socialism is going to work wonders, and Chavez will be rememebered as a great leader who led his people to the socialist worker’s paradise promised land.
Others, like me, have been making arguments that the same socialist policies have been tried before, led to terrible outcomes, and will do so again. Here we have a country that’s a perfect lab test for socialism - it’s got oil money, the leader was elected, no one can claim that it’s not ‘real’ socialism. So I think it’s very useful to post empirical evidence of what those policies are actually doing.
It’s as predictable as rain. Implement price controls, and you get shortages and black markets. Subsidize industry, and you get gluts and inefficient distribution. In the meantime, people try to go around your idiotic rules, so you need to start cracking heads to maintain the purity of the revolution. The smart money gets out of dodge, and you have capital flight. All of this was predicted on this board before Chavez started implementing his policies.
So right now, we have two competing claims: The socialist side, which claims that Chavez will revitalize his country and be remembered as a great leader. The capitalist side, which says that he’ll run his economy into the ground in very specific ways. Two testable theories. And now data is starting to come in. That’s not worthy of debate?
Obvously. So what? I’m trying to debate economics, not overthrow the Venezuelan government. Venezuela just happens to be a particularly good lab experiment. We’ve got predictions from both sides of the debate as to what the results of certain policies will be. Now we can watch them unfold and see who was right.
Here’s a further prediction, for example: Venezuela will either change course and starting moving towards freer markets (like the establishment of ‘enterprise zones’ or free market spheres where the economy is in the worst shape), or it will continue to be increasingly authoritarian. And if it goes down the latter path it will be an economic disaster, and socialists will use the authoritarianism as an excuse to say that Venezuela’s experience doesn’t count because it wasn’t ‘real’ socialism.
It’s just curious to me that the right seems to get so exercised about Chavez. Is it because you’re afraid he might succeed? Or is it that Chavez is a threat to big oil, and big oil spends a lot of energy and money stirring up the right wing against him?
Why doesn’t the right get angry about the other authoritarian regimes in the world, like Burma or Saudi Arabia? The only difference I can see is that big oil has unhindered access to Saudi Arabia and Burma, but not so Venezuela.
At least Chavez was elected. If you’re worried about oppressed people, why don’t we start with those who don’t get a vote?
How is he a ‘threat to big oil’, and if he were, why in hell would I care? I’m not ‘Big Oil’.
I’m not angry at Chavez. The world’s full of clowns like him. Rather, I’m frustrated by the continual support of people like Chavez from socialists and liberals on this message board and elsewhere, despite the total failure of policies like his everywhere they’ve been tried.
I’m also annoyed that the very people who scream ‘totalitarian!’ whenever George Bush advocates anything that might be remotely construed to affect someone’s rights somewhere, are the same people who will shrug and use the old, “you’ve gotta break some eggs to make an omelette” argument when a thug like Chavez expropriates property, shuts down free expression, throws people in jail for wanting to sell their products at market prices, and in general clamps the iron fist of big brother down on a nation.
The annoying part of debating with socialists is that they always employ the ‘No true Scotsman’ defense. Any time you point to the failure of the last people’s revolution, they counter that it failed because it wasn’t ‘real’ socialism. So here we have the chance to get the predictions on the record in advance, and actually see which predictions come true - those of the capitalists like me, who have made very specific claims regarding the results of Chavez’s policies, or the socialists like BrainGlutton who claim he’s going to be remembered as a great man who revitalized Venezuela’s economy. The predictions are on the record before the policies took effect. Now we get to watch the results.
There are plenty of “no true Scotsmen” free marketeers, too, Sam. For example, suppose I were to ask you why Venezuela had such crushing poverty under its previous administration. (You know, before your bogeyman Chavez was in power.) Would you agree that the “free market” wasn’t working? Or would you tell us that Venezuela didn’t have “true” free markets before?
Also, why are you only just discovering the poor of Venezuela? Why weren’t you so vocally concerned about them before Chavez came along?
Because they never had one? While, but nearly any definition they DO have a socialist government currently.
Um…do you have any evidence that Venezuela was EVER a free market economy…in any sense of the word at all? If so, please provide it and fight my ignornace…afaik they NEVER operated what could even remotely be called a free market.
Because they are on the radar now…and weren’t before?
Should have responded to this before. Here you go:
Now let’s play connect-the-dots. Big oil provides a lot of the financing for right-wing think tanks. It’s not hard to see why folks employed by such think tanks have been working overtime churning out anti-Chavez articles. And the rank-and-file of the right wing have just been lapping it up.
It’s also not hard to see why the think tanks don’t get nearly as worked up (or worked up at all) about authoritarion and non-democratic regimes in Saudi Arabia and Burma, where the oil flows freely.
My ‘beef’ was with your claim that Venezuela had a free market economy…or something that was even remotely resembling a free market economy. I think Chavez is a jumped up thug…but I have no real beef with him. If the folks in Venezuela what him, then more power to them…I’m sure they will reap what they have sown economically at some point. I was just pointing out that your Scotsman assertion was flawed. Even when they WEREN’T a socialist nation they didn’t have a free market…nothing even remotely resembling one in fact…while they certainly have a government (several) that are at least passingly resembling a Socialist government. This isn’t a ‘no true Scotsman’ argument…this is trying to say someone from outer Mongolia is a Scot!
For my part, I expect pretty much the results Sam laid out wrt their future economy. I think the oil money may stretch things out a bit, but the end result is fairly predictable. I’m sure in a year or 3 when things go tits up, BG will have an interesting excuse as to why that happened…probably tied in somehow to the US, Bush or the reactionary element in Venezuela who are getting in the way of the people (or most like a combination of these factors).
Then let it dissolve. The United Nations is a brilliant idea, but it needs to reflect the world as it is today, not as it was after World War II. It seems to me that the United Nations acts as a rubber stamp for U.S foreign policy. I could be wrong. Am I wrong?
The other countries on the Security Council, aside from making a 10 minute speech, must feel absolutely useless during the voting process. It shouldn’t be this way. I think Chavez was attempting to allude to that point in his speech. The Allies are not the King of the World nor should they be.
The United Nations needs comprehensive reform. I believe the five permanent members of the Security Council should stay, even just as a symbolic nod to Truman, but there needs to be some mechanism in which vetoes can be overturned by a overwhelming majority.
I am almost sad to admit it, but I think people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad are, to some degree, correct in idea that the United Nations is too politically driven. There is no reason why something like Darfur or Rwanda should ever happen. Period. Even recently, in the Lebanon-Israeli War, the United Nations stood idly by while over a million Arabs poured from Lebanon until neighboring Arab countries. The United Nations is limited to what it can do because the United States vetoes any resolution condemning Israel.
More importantly, what message does that send to the Lebanese & Palestinians? And Arabs in general? Where is their substantive voice on the Security Council? Who vetoes resolutions against countries in the Middle East? Until there is reform and some sense of equality, the United Nations will continue to exacerbate tensions between new and old powers.
Of course you are wrong…unless you REALLY think that Russia and China (not to mention France!) are rubber stamping US foreign policy. DO you think such an incredible thing?
Why? I’m guessing you aren’t talking about the 5 permanent members…who absolutely aren’t useless during the voting process, seeing as they have an equal vote with the US.
Perhaps you aren’t familiar with how the UNSC operates? If so, here is a Wiki article on it to brush up your knowledge. I agree that the way the council is set up is unfair…the 5 permanent members (not JUST the US) control everything, and its an exclusive club that no one else can join (and worthless members, like Russia and France can’t be gotten rid of). No new blood, and some dead wood. However, the way you are stating it is, well, wrong…the US doesn’t control things, nor is it a rubber stamp for our desires. You will note that it didn’t exactly rubber stamp our invasion of Iraq, no?
