Occupying the Moral High Ground

[vimothy]

Under socialism, Venezuela's poorest have seen their incomes increase markedly.

Oilwars?! Puh-lease, that site is such a lot of nonsense.

You might like to think of why poor people have more money under Chavez (he prints it! the guys a bloody lunatic and the Venezuelan economy is self-combusting in slow-motion) and consider the effects of something called inflation. (I'm not even going to mention the harm he's done to Venezuelan democracy).

This is the best site on Venezuela: http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/

 

[elgato]

Clearly I don't agree with your views, but I think that is at least pragmatic.

I just think, for me, the reasons we have regulations are self-evident and you can't have a system where welfare is left to the market.

a big area of interest at the moment, particularly in the environmental context, are market-based mechanisms, to replace traditional command and control regulatory approaches. i think there lies a great deal of promise in these ideas, they have considerable advantages over less dynamic approaches (although of course there are also potential difficulties).

a primary example is of course eco-taxation, but there is a problem in that the public at large react very badly to talk of taxation, associating it with 'bureacracy' and the 'nanny state' blah blah, when in fact in this context it forms a key part of developing a market-based solution to an important and extremely damaging economic externality, not to mention the fact that most of the taxing is on companies...

regulation is compatible with a market-led economy, it just depends how widely we draw the lines of internal and external (apologies im using economic terms like that inappropriately)

but the response to taxation is (at least in part) the result of the simplistic rhetoric of much of the right, where it boils down to 'my rights' and personal liberty rather than what appears to be Vimothy's ideal, led by a desire to improve the standard of life for humanity as a whole (or in fact Earth as a whole). because a lot of market capitalists in the public (whether they would call themselves that or not) dont really give a shit about the bigger picture, they are rather led by a very immediate individualism

 

[vimothy]

Chavez has undoubtedly some good....

No, that's simply not true.

Go here for the best analysis I've seen on corruption under Chavez: http://www.cato.org/pubs/dpa/dpa2.pdf

And here for a really good, simple powerpoint presentation (sorry, I know they're not popular on this board) on inflationary pressures in Venezuala: http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2007/01/complete-idiots-guide-to-complete.html

Or here for the technical version: http://blogs.salon.com/0001330/2007/01/30.html#a3310

 

[vimothy]

That Friedman quote at the bottom of the powerpoint presentation should be nailed to Chavez's head (or at least, someone should tell it to him):

"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."

 

[noel emits]

That Friedman quote at the bottom of the powerpoint presentation should be nailed to Chavez's head (or at least, someone should tell it to him):

"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."

Isn't that a bit of a tautology? Unless he means it has nothing to do with balloons or universes. Hmmm.

 

[noel emits]

Really worth reading (it's only two pages).

Bernard Lietaer - A "Green" Convertible Currency

http://www.transaction.net/money/gc/gc01.html

"Negative-interest currency can help to push inflation down. Inflation is simply the depreciation of a currency in terms of goods. A negative-interest currency--like any commodity that has a significant storage cost--becomes automatically more valuable over time (a look at the price of future delivery of gold or copper in the financial pages compared to today's "spot" price shows that effect). In addition, in a "normal" economy, there is a substantial amount of hidden debt servicing in every purchase we make--estimates put it on average at 30 to 50 percent--which would be gradually eliminated by the introduction of negative-interest currency. The combination of the automatic appreciation of the value of the currency and the gradual reduction of the interest component from all capital-intensive goods and services, results in a powerful technique to combat inflationary tendencies.

There is an additional beneficial effect with regard to the environment. The higher the money rate of interest, the stronger is the pressure to discount the future and to place immediate gains ahead of long-term concerns. With negative-interest currency, this pressure is not only absent but even reversed, and more environment-friendly priorities automatically prevail.

During the economic depression of the 1930s, Europe saw a number of practical monetary experiments with negative-interest alternative currency. The device worked splendidly. The alternative currency (typically issued by a small city or region) had many times the rapidity of circulation of the official currency, and the anticipated employment and environmental benefits were actualized. In Worgl, for example, people spontaneously started replanting forests just to dispose of their negative-interest currency in anticipation of future cash flow to be expected from the growing trees. In every case, however, the central bank halted the experiment after a few years. The experiments were blocked not because they were unsuccessful but because they were so remarkably successful that they were perceived as threatening to centralized decision-making and the central bank's monopoly on issuing currency."

 

[vimothy]

Isn't that a bit of a tautology? Unless he means it has nothing to do with balloons or universes. Hmmm.

Eh?

 

[noel emits]

That Friedman quote at the bottom of the powerpoint presentation should be nailed to Chavez's head (or at least, someone should tell it to him):

"Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon."

?

I'm not reading it in context but that's like saying "Red is always a colour phenomenon."

 

[vimothy]

?

I'm not reading it in context but that's like saying "Red is always a colour phenomenon."

He's saying that inflation is caused by irresponsible monetary policy. For instance, many people seem to think (this is just based on conversations I've had) that price rises are inflation, when in fact they are necessary deflationary pressure. Increase the money supply, increase inflation. Fix prices, increase inflation. Yes, its obvious to me and its obvious to you, but then you are a lot more economically aware than the Chavez government in Venezuela. (Which is why, I guess, Chavez tries to stop prise rises and fix the prices of goods).

 

[vimothy]

Here's a perfect example, from the oilwars blog. It's pretty funny:

Over the past few months we've heard all sorts of non-sense about supposed "shortages" of food in Venezuela. Of course, as we've seen before these "shortages" don't reflect lower levels of consumption, which is what most people would assume, but rather result from demand increasing so much production can't keep up.

LOL! And why is that, Mr Oilwars, why is demand outstripping supply? Could have something to do with Chavez flooding the country with ever more worthless amounts of bolivars?

It gets better:

Despite all the oppositions non-sense about Venezuela's economy being in trouble the people who actually are right in the middle of that economy can't help but notice that it is in fact booming. As the saying goes, you can't cover the sun with a finger. And right now the booming standard of living of average Venezuelan's is not something that is going to be easily hidden by a finger or anything else for that matter.

Inflation is rampant, but the writer of this blog can't see beyond the fact that he's got more money under Chavez. He's unable to add the two things together (more money supply + goods shortages) and see the obvious: excessive inflation.

 

[crackerjack]

Never trust anyone who hyphenates 'nonsense'.

 

[Gavin]

btw, Gavin, what aboout al-Sadr whose Mahdi army attack the occupiers as well as forming Shia death squads murdering Sunni civilians?

There have been atrocities on all sides, but from what I've read, Al Sadr has attempted to expell the members of the Madhi army carrying those out. The much bigger problem is the Shi'ite death squads of the Badr Brigades, the armed wing of the SCIRII, the dominant party in the Iraqi government. All those news reports about death squads "wearing army uniforms"? That's because they're army troops, carrying out executions with the consent of the client government!

Interestingly enough, the SCIRII gets support from both the U.S. and Iran, who both have a stake in promoting sectarian violence (and labeling the shitstorm they start a "civil war"). Divide 'n' conquer!

Where do they stand on your 'good killers' flow chart?

Ha, I'll bite. I haven't worked out all the details, but a good deal above the killers hiding in Humvees and B52s , if we're talking about being justified in using violence.

Oilwars?! Puh-lease, that site is such a lot of nonsense.

Vimothy, you twat, did you look at the post? All the documents cited in the blog are from government reports! I'm rather tired of your "debating" style of copious amounts of posts full of banal generalities coupled with your deliberate ignoring of evidence that proves you wrong. I have attempted to cite the sources for my assertions, far more than you have tried, but you ignore them -- "Oh Chomsky, everyone knows he's insane"; "Oh, I don't like this blog, obviously nothing it cited could have any valuable information" -- does this pass for informed debate? You're self-censoring the information you get better than the mainstream media ever could! Viva your self-discipline, Foucault would be proud.

And then you have the gall to post editorials from free-market ideologues like the Cato Institute as if they represent some sort of unvarnished truth! The Cato Institute would prefer multinational companies to "misappropriate billions in oil wealth" just as they do in that bastion of free trade, Nigeria.

Do you disagree that the poorest segments of Venezuela have seen their lots improve while income disparity increases in the West? Has Chavez's "corruption" affected this? From reading that report, it seems Cato's big problem (unsurprisingly) is the nationalization of the oil industry, and much of what it accuses him of (no-bid contracts, buying weapons, ignoring portions of the constitution) are regularly done by the ruling class in the U.S. It's a question of results.

Perhaps we should invade Venezuela, after all the Cato Institute tells us he's doing no good! Even while he retains the support of the citizenry. This is your flavor of democracy, right Vim? The kind delivered with a gun-barrel?

 

[crackerjack]

There have been atrocities on all sides, but from what I've read, Al Sadr has attempted to expell the members of the Madhi army carrying those out. The much bigger problem is the Shi'ite death squads of the Badr Brigades, the armed wing of the SCIRII, the dominant party in the Iraqi government. All those news reports about death squads "wearing army uniforms"? That's because they're army troops, carrying out executions with the consent of the client government!

Fuck me, there's not one morsel of iinsurgent propaganda you won't swallow, is there? So Al-Sadr is a misunderstood saint doing hie best to curn his wilder boys, while the Badr Brigade are just doing the bidding of the US.

Interestingly enough, the SCIRII gets support from both the U.S. and Iran, who both have a stake in promoting sectarian violence (and labeling the shitstorm they start a "civil war"). Divide 'n' conquer

And the American stake in this is what, exactly? Oh yeah, I forgot, ramping up the violence and exposing their whole battle plan as an utter fiasco.

 

[gek-opel]

Well hang on a minute, that's pretty unfair - have I or have I not been at pains to point out that I thought, at the time, that the country might benefit from Saddam's overthrow despite, rather than because of, America's and Britain's intentions? The worst you can accuse me of is naivety.
I know, and I knew then, that Bush, Cheney et al didn't start this war because of their undying empathy for the Iraqi people - otherwise, there are any number of other countries with dictators as bad as Saddam which would have been much easier to 'liberate', on account of being far less well-armed - what I thought was that a stable, Saddam-less Iraq (which is what the Whitehouse, Pentagon and oil industry wanted) would coincidentally be good for the Iraqis. As it is, I don't think those who started the war and are currently conducting the American side of it are exactly rubbing their hands with glee every time a car bomb goes off in Fallujah.

Hmm- naivety seems fair enough- even if we ignore intention, for a moment, and look at whether it is actually even possible to achieve what they set out to achieve, I think you and others have had totally misplaced faith in the power of the West to actually deliver (indeed- on anyone to deliver)... as powerful as the West is, there are limits! Invading a country, changing its regime and restructuring it into a peaceful democracy (even a sham one) seems impossible. Specifically in the Middle-East region, has this never been achieved before? This is what I meant by the historical perspective. The argument relating to the benefits of an eventually Saddam free Iraq versus the previous status quo are disarming, somewhat seductive even, until one considers the practical impossibility of effectively implementing such a task. The best bet towards delivering such an outcome came at the end of the previous Gulf War, (ie a functioning resistance from within the country against Saddam) but that opportunity was squandered.

 

[Gavin]

Fuck me, there's not one morsel of iinsurgent propaganda you won't swallow, is there? So Al-Sadr is a misunderstood saint doing hie best to curn his wilder boys, while the Badr Brigade are just doing the bidding of the US.

Yes, here are some of the "insurgent propaganda" sources I've swallowed.

The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081301209.html"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/20/AR2005082001317.html

Reuters

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0409-02.htm

Arab Media Watch (oh no, Arabs! Probably insurgent propaganda)

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-hitmat210804.htm

Or do some research of your own on the various resistance factions on wikipedia. These can get you started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badr_Brigade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Council_for_the_Islamic_Revolution_in_Iraq

Apologies for my intense distrust of your common sense assertions.

And the American stake in this is what, exactly? Oh yeah, I forgot, ramping up the violence and exposing their whole battle plan as an utter fiasco.

Oh, you mean liquidating a nation-state by dividing its population so it can't oppose the occupation? It's only a fiasco if you believe the coalition wanted to stick a big syringe of democracy and freedom into Iraq and turn it into our buddy, which is crap. They wanted strategic bases, regional allies, strong military presence, and oil. Maybe they thought they could do this quickly and easily, but no matter: they're still there, and they'll be there for decades unless driven out through resistance and opposition in the home countries (though that seems to matter little in our so-called advanced democracies).

 

[crackerjack]

Oh, you mean liquidating a nation-state by dividing its population so it can't oppose the occupation?

Come off it. There was never any prospect of Shia and Sunni uniting against US occupation en masse. Either you know this or you are a fool.

 

[gek-opel]

Vim: You asked upthread about left wing Economics...

you might want to check out this... http://www.paecon.net/ (post-autistic economics)

Who are a bunch of renegade economists attempting to reform the pseudo-science from its neo-classical dogmatic slumbers...

 

[matt b]

blimey, you go away for a couple of days...
its difficult to know where to start because just about every statement you have made on this thread is bollocks, but;

Fascism is basically a socialist economic programme married to nationalism, totalitarianism and violent revolution. Other than nationalism, I don't see anything there that would have the support of the right, but there are and have been plenty of leftist nationalists..

these sorts of statements highlight that your knowledge of fascism, communism, socialism, anarchism etc etc is virtually nil.

what is a 'socialist economic programme'? it's completely meaningless- i guess you actually mean a 'totalitarian-communist economic programme', but you know all 'the left' are all the same aren't they?

the right (inc. lord rothermere, members of the royal family, churchill) were at best neutral towards hitler before his imperialist aspirations became apparent, at worst actively supportive.

the left was actively fighting fascism on the streets during this period, whilst people like orwell were writing plenty about the situation (i suggest you read his stuff as it might help you out of your world of confusion)

My position is libertarian right (i.e. classical liberalism)

again, you are saying two different things here. if you claim to be on the libertarian right, why are you supportive of nation states invading other nation states?

the libertarian right wish to minimise (and do away with) the state and its activities, not encourage it.

Anyway, when it mattered, the right fought the fascists in WWII.

i'm sure you're aware that the uk/usa re-installed fascists to power in greece and the balkans after ww2, whilst destrying the partisan movements.

 

[crackerjack]

the right (inc. lord rothermere, members of the royal family, churchill) were at best neutral towards hitler before his imperialist aspirations became apparent, at worst actively supportive.

That might be a bit unfair on Churchill, though he was certainly no anti-fascist (viz his overt support for Mussolini and generally benign indifference to Franco).

 

[vimothy]

Vimothy, you twat, did you look at the post? All the documents cited in the blog are from government reports! I'm rather tired of your "debating" style of copious amounts of posts full of banal generalities coupled with your deliberate ignoring of evidence that proves you wrong. I have attempted to cite the sources for my assertions, far more than you have tried, but you ignore them -- "Oh Chomsky, everyone knows he's insane"; "Oh, I don't like this blog, obviously nothing it cited could have any valuable information" -- does this pass for informed debate? You're self-censoring the information you get better than the mainstream media ever could! Viva your self-discipline, Foucault would be proud.

Again ad homs are the level upon which you arguing. Yes, I'm a twat. I've been told. However, you didn't address my point, which was that of course poor people have more money under Chavez, everyone has more money - it's called inflation. Oilwars is the most pro-Cahvez English language site on the internet. The writer is as economically literate as the Chavez government. What happens when the bolivar crashes Gavin? What hapens when the food-shortages become chronic? Poor people will suffer most because rich people (like the Chavesta elite) can see this coming a mile off and are buying foreign currency to hedge against it. Think that you can buy imports when Venezuelan production fails? Remeber that the currency is worthless.

And then you have the gall to post editorials from free-market ideologues like the Cato Institute as if they represent some sort of unvarnished truth! The Cato Institute would prefer multinational companies to "misappropriate billions in oil wealth" just as they do in that bastion of free trade, Nigeria.

Yes, fancy that, eh! Fancy posting reports from actual economists who actually understand what they're talking about: the disgustingly free trade (anti-war, anti-war on drugs, pro-immigration, anti-statist) Cato Institute.

Do you disagree that the poorest segments of Venezuela have seen their lots improve while income disparity increases in the West? Has Chavez's "corruption" affected this? From reading that report, it seems Cato's big problem (unsurprisingly) is the nationalization of the oil industry, and much of what it accuses him of (no-bid contracts, buying weapons, ignoring portions of the constitution) are regularly done by the ruling class in the U.S. It's a question of results.

You're not listening - Chavez has presided over two things of note: the destruction of the Venezuelan economy and the destruction of Venezuelan democracy. His horrendous corruption is, as you suggest, less important. Though if I were Venezuelan (and not a racist imperrialist happy to see brown people suffer under the rule of kleptocratic idiots like Chavez) I'd probably be a bit miffed.

Perhaps we should invade Venezuela, after all the Cato Institute tells us he's doing no good! Even while he retains the support of the citizenry. This is your flavor of democracy, right Vim? The kind delivered with a gun-barrel?

Since Chavez passed the Hitlerian enabling act and squashed democratic institutions in his country, and stifles any public dissent, I'd think you'd have to travel a long way to call Venezuela a democracy.