Hugo Chavez, RIP

PS...Why are Cubans dirt poor and willing a to risk it all on a 90 mile journey on the open sea.  They vote with their feet and leave.  If they weren't an island, they would need a wall to keep the Cubans in.  

RDP wrote:

What, they've practised socialism for 14 years and they still have income inequality greater than Canada?  Sounds like a failed revolution. 

What, you really think you can build an industrialized first world economy in 14 years? Do you know how long it took Canada and the US to be so highly developed? Btw, just letting you know, it wasn't done with "free" market magic.

Also for the record, poverty in Venezuela has been cut massively since the Bolivarian revolution took hold. There's certainly a lot of things they could have done better, but to argue it hasn't been a mass improvement for most people involved is just plain ignoring the facts.

OK, how about Cuba.  They've had 55 years.  I'll give you the fact that income inequality is negligible.  Everyone has nothing.  I'll bet the Cuban citizen wouldn't mind a little income inequality.  How many more years do they need to develop their industry.  Socialism = force & coercion.  You have to take by force or threat of force to redistribute.  Peasants benefit in the beginning.  After that, they are the ones who are being taken from.  Please show me the socialist success story.  Socialism is a raw deal for the talented and industrious.  You want these people on your side.

Aristotleded wrote:  Because American immigration policy essentially makes that the only viable way for Cubans who want to migrate to the US to do so.

Wikipedia writes:  

The Cuban government currently forbids its citizens from leaving or returning to Cuba without first obtaining permission from the government. In a translation by Human Rights Watch, under Cuba’s criminal code, individuals who, “without completing legal formalities, leave or take actions in preparation for leaving the national territory” can face prison sentences of one to three years in prison.[23] From 1985 to 1994 the number of illegal emigrants is estimated to 82,500, with an additional 7,500 up to the mid-2000.[24]

Even discussing illegal emigration carries a six-month prison sentence.[25]

UPDATE: Law-Decree 302, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cuba on October 16, shall enter into force on 14 January 2013. The Immigration law of the Cuban regime eliminates the need for an exit permit but increases passport costs to 100 CUC, the equivalent of 5 months of average salary.

Aside from the defence industry, I don't know if there is a greater socialist transfer of wealth from people's wallets than what North American governments fork over to the energy extraction industries.

Otto Reich served under presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush and George W. Bush. A strong critic of the new wave of left-wing Latin American leaders, he supported the Nicaraguan Contras in the 1980s and was assistant secretary of state for the Western Hemisphere during the 2002 coup attempt against the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Born in Cuba in 1945, he is a champion of the US anti-Castro community and believes the Cuban embargo is still essential to bring change to the island.

He talks about US 's role in coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002 (at 5:40)

http://youtu.be/42PymQ1Cpek?t=5m42s

NS wrote:

NDPP wrote:

 

This discussion should probably move to the 'Cuba' thread

http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/cuba

 

Yeah, I created that thread

Meg the mod can you make that happen?

No, sorry. You can begin participating in the Cuba thread but I can only move threads to other forums, not other threads.

Cut in credit rating by Fitch.  This is not good when you need to borrow money.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-18/venezuela-s-credit-rating-lower...

The Moonie news!

Yes, everyone is lying.  Notice, though, which way the refugees are walking.  (I'll give you a hint, it isn't into Venezuela)

RDP wrote:

Oh, to be Chilean.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/venezuela-economic-underperf...

From the article by two Harvard professors:

Quote:

Hausmann and Santos had the temerity to ask whether, having defaulting [sic] on every conceivable kind of domestic debt, Venezuela should invite foreign investors to the party and default on its debt to them as well. Is it such an unreasonable question?

Unreasonable, perhaps not. Ungrammatical? Yeah, I'd say so.

Last word goes to Tom Lehrer.

 

 

RDP wrote:

Oh, to be Chilean.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/venezuela-economic-underperf...

Oh to be Greek. A model of neo-liberalism.

Just check out his posting history. Also a Zionist.

RDP wrote:

Ah, my anti-semitic friend.

mods notified. Buh-bye!!

I think he gets some kind of award for that one...

Unionist wrote:

He confuses anti-Zionist with anti-semite.

He's anti-semantic.

 

Hiyo!

Neither has any rightwinger.

Yet more great moments in socialism:  http://news.yahoo.com/venezuela-bars-opposition-leader-holding-office-00...

RDP wrote:

Ah, my anti-semitic friend.

That's an unfounded personal attack and is not permitted here on babble. Additionally, pro-Zionist politics aren't welcome either. This is a progressive forum.

RDP wrote:

Capitalism has moved billions of people out of grinding poverty.  There is no denying this.

Actually there is.  We're in a state of denial on this point in fact.

RDP wrote:

Really, you think redistribution policies created the middle class in the western world?  You think redistribution policies are pulling millions of people out of grinding poverty in China and India now?  Please show me the socialist society with a middle class.  Redistribution and socialism have now been around for 100 years.  Please point to its success story.

Countries like Sweden, Norway and Denmark are all countries with a mixed economy and redistributionist policies, reduced income inequality, and little poverty. Show me a so-called non-redistributionist capitalist country without wide income inequality and high rates of poverty.

China is still a communist nation last time I checked.  It maintains a highly centralized economy that engages in large scale re-distribution.  Nowadays even the western capitalist knows where the getting is good.  So, if millions are being pulled out of poverty in China and into a new, economically enfranchised proletariat, logically you would have to attribute that to the planners at the central committee of the communist party.  The type of government though is beside the point.  Economic activity can occur under any form of government that facilitates it.  Corproations are now lining up to do business with the theocrats in Iran.  China didn't just become an economically important nation just because the globalists decided to ramp up doing business with it.  It has been producing goods for Asian, North American, and European economies for many decades before.  What has capitalism ever done for America's poverty stricken by the way.  The only way they've ever been provided with relief from dire poverty, even the working poor, is through a redistribution of wealth.  If it were pure and simple capitalism deciding matters, the poor in America would only have their prayers.  Otherwise there likely would have been a second revolution in America long ago.  Redistribution of wealth has long been recognized by the capitalists as integral to their own survival, even if it is begrudged.  The Chinese government are certainly well aware of this.  Once upon a time and still today, mostly by people who don't know any better, capitalism and political freedom were often uttered in the same breath.  People were left with this idea that one goes hand in hand with the other.  But if South and Central America taught us anything, its that this is not necessarily so.  Capitalism can thrive just as well or even more where authoritarian regimes are in place to keep the population in line.  You really should go and learn something before coming on here to extol the virtures of Capitalism.  But that's really not your game is it, to learn anything?  It's clear that you're here as a troll, and quite an ignorant one at that.

The important thing to note is that redistribution is ultimately in every Capitalists best interest.  Before capitalism was even named, the French monarchy of old came to understand the importance of redistrubtion, even if it was rather late in coming.

They are a capitalist dictatorship, surely that's not in dispute. (And surely babblers don't accept that you can be either "communist" or "a democracy"?) 

They're a dictatorship, with both socialist and capitalist features. With little respect for workers' rights I might add.