<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, and this isn’t a straw man argument…how?</p>
<p>You’re using some pretty clever fallacies (straw men and red herrings aplenty), but you’re not really engaging with the economic history of the region and the rest of the world, as well as development theory itself.</p>
<p>You address me. Play on my terms, you’re getting the Masters Degreee. Tell me when capitalism hasn’t been accompanied by the gun barrel. The success of capitalist economies has to do with exploiting either their own populace, or in Western style, other countries. Thats it. Simple as day.</p>
<p>Sevansalari,</p>
<p>That’s not pertinent to the issue.</p>
<p>But I’ll play along for a post or two. All international relations is played by the bayonet. The Soviets and Chinese didn’t exactly espouse communism through good will and boxes of chocolate.</p>
<p>However, you’re still not engaging any of my arguments, and are choosing instead to distract with some nifty little herrings.</p>
<p>How many democracies in other countries did the communists overthrow, good sir</p>
<p>Again, red herring that has no pertinence when it comes to Hugo Chavez’s policies.</p>
<p>Engage the economic theory as to why Chavez’s policies are bad in the long-run, or it appears to me that you have no credible argument.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is why we spent all those years propping up that Hitler guy in Germany…</p>
<p>(Never say never…)</p>
<p>Hundreds of thousands of American “tourists” (whoops, I meant troops) spending cold, hard cash!</p>
<p>“Engage the economic theory as to why Chavez’s policies are bad in the long-run, or it appears to me that you have no credible argument.”</p>
<p>They are good in the short-run (obviously). They are good in the medium-run, if only because they repatriate profits.</p>
<p>In the long run, we are all dead.</p>
<p>mini,</p>
<p>I’d argue that it’s bad in the medium term, even. Well, at least for the middle class.</p>
<p><<the pity=“” of=“” chavez’s=“” rule=“” is=“” that=“” it’s=“” all=“” being=“” done=“” democratically.=“” unlike=“” hussein=“” in=“” iraq,=“” we=“” can’t=“” even=“” step=“” and=“” say,=“” “hey,=”" stop=“” that!=“” don’t=“” like=“” dictatorships!“=”">></the></p>
<p>You actually wish that Venezuelan people were submerged in a bloody dictatorship, so the United States would have right to organize a war in which many other people die? You want to devastate a country only to make a rich country richer? And thus enlarge the gap between the poor and the rich? Don’t bring up such comment if you want to befriend a Venezuelan.</p>
<p>“Do what we want! We don’t like dictatorships!” If this paradoxical statement were sincere, there should have been a federal suicide already…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oy vey, no. Read a later post of mine where I specify that I was being sardonic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did I say that? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said anything to that effect. In fact, I’d argue that Chavez’s policies will only widen the gap in the long run, because it won’t build a sustainable middle class. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>Notice you shied away from the question about communist USSR or China overthrowing democratic countries? I believe it is linked to the topic because capitalism is inherently global and the capitalists have seen it to their benefit to topple and destroy other countries for their own benefit. See Latin America if you don’t believe me.</p>
<p>Sardonic, uhm? Or regretful later? I wouldn’t make a sustainable statement against my own point of view just for the purpose of being ironic; and I would be clearer with my tongue-in-cheek jokes as well. But I’m not the one to judge clarity; if it wasn’t your real opinion, I can only argue that many other people actually think like that, and I thought you were one. I’m sorry.</p>
<p>“Did I say that?” You said that you’d like Venezuela to be like Iraq. Picture a war between a rich powerful country and a developing weak one nowadays; what happens next? Prosperity for the loser like for Germany and Japan after WWII? No.</p>
<p>“Huh?” If the United States Federal Government dictated to others governments what to do, and then claimed that it doesn’t like dictatorships; it would have to suicide because it would be a dictatorship itself. That’s what I wanted to imply.</p>
<p>Ari,</p>
<p>I understand what you’re saying but applying theory to where the rubber meets the road doesn’t always pan out. Chavez is worried about Chavez and staying in power. What happens to Ven. 50 years from now is not his concern. </p>
<p>This same arguement applies to the united states. “Deficeit what deficeit, I’ll be dead in less than 50 years.”</p>
<p>He is doing what will keep him in power, just as any political leader who wants to stay inpower does. This is the problem with economic theories and forecasts. In my field it was Management theory “maximize shareholder returns” they are circumvented by “stay in power”. This applies to politics and business. Theory’s only good if the people in charge think along the same lines. Usually they do, if they benefit, when they don’t bye bye economic theory.</p>
<p>my question remains ari</p>
<p>Chavez is a train wreck about to happen. He has done little to increase investment in oil production and his wells are running out slowly but surely. He does not have enough money for his income redistribution plans, so he is nationalizing growing industries without paying businesses for their assets. He just did this to Verizon as he took over the telecommunications industry. Venezuela’s stock market is dropping and will continue to drop as only an idiot would invest in an economy on the road to ruine. Without investment, an economy will not grow and investments are drying up in Venezuela. In ten years, Venezuela will have an economy in ruine or depression. I can’t wait for Chavez to get the credit he deserves.</p>
<p>Opie,</p>
<p>Oh, I’m not arguing that point at all.</p>
<p>What I’m arguing is that Chavez is concerned about the people, and nothing but the people.</p>
<p>We’re talking about a guy who’s demonstrated a serious interest in maintaining his authority, for better or for worse. I’m always cautious around powermongers.</p>
<p>Kyo,</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is more than one way to deal with states that do things that run contrary to what the international community wants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The rules of domestic politics don’t apply internationally. The US, or China, or India, or the UK, or any state telling another state to “do X, Y, and Z” is not a form of dictatorship. It’s international affairs.</p>
<p>Sevansalari,</p>
<p>All I said was
</p>
<p>By the way, people do have lives outside of CC.com. Don’t goad.</p>
<p>Ok, well please answer me the question whenever you feel free.</p>
<p>I don’t see how it’s pertinent to the discussion (more like a silly little game of poking at the red herrings to me, but…)</p>
<p>Let’s just look at China and Taiwan as an example. The PRC is by no means a democracy. It’s, at best, an autocracy. However, Taiwan is by most measures now a democracy. What did the PRC do when Taiwan said they were going to have elections? Threatened the use of force.</p>
<p>The only thing stopping the PRC from not sailing across the Taiwan Strait was a little thing called the 7th fleet. Otherwise, they would most certainly have made Taiwan once again part of China.</p>
<p>You’re missing the point I made, though. Communist states did attempt overthrows in their favor. Heck, just look at Afghanistan as an example.</p>
<p>But once again, confounding variables is your foe. Was it capitalism that drove the US to overthrow governments, or was it a concern over hegemony in the sphere of influence? The Soviet Union, buffered behind Poland and other pretty unwilling satellite states, had its sphere of influence pretty well defined. And if you think they did it with a handshake and some flowers, then I suggest you reread how the Russians built the USSR and its satellites. </p>
<p>China had no problem attempting to keep Korea under communist rule by the sword, as well.</p>
<p>You keep pointing at capitalism as the cause, but you completely ignore the fact that the US and NATO and the USSR and Warsaw were bitterly fighting over hegemony of the world. This became most apparent in their own backyards, as they attempted to make sure that nearby countries stayed in the fold, so to speak. Why do you think the US was willing to chance nuclear war when Krushchev was sending nukes to Cuba? </p>
<p>Because we had SRBMs in the fringes of the Soviet bloc, pointed at Moscow.</p>
<p>You have to put all these things in context. Unfortunately, many young people completely forget that the Cold War ever happened…</p>