Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelyanoob]

Sounds more like it would undermine their credibility, someone destroying stuff then invoking their name to justify it! I would be seriously pissed off if I was running something legitimate, then people did that. Makes me distrust their true motives. Can they really be so stupid as not to realize such behavior could get the center shut down?

[Kay12]

Sounds more like it would undermine their credibility, someone destroying stuff then invoking their name to justify it! I would be seriously pissed off if I was running something legitimate, then people did that. Makes me distrust their true motives. Can they really be so stupid as not to realize such behavior could get the center shut down?

Indeed, it caused quite a stir. Eventually, Satama decided not to condemn the strike while they wouldn't encourage such activities either. I guess, however, that they would've reacted more if the strike had caused real damage instead of just potential.

And about Satama's squatting, it turned out to be a very peaceful event indeed, I've heard. They occupied an unused building owned by Helsinki University, who despite initial hostile reactions could negotiate the issue in fairly friendly terms. One representative of the University was even thankful because apparently the administration was unaware they had a building that needed to be put to use. Satama got a lot of media attention (in my view, mainly positive). A fairly nice ordeal, so this is technically a derailment because I'm not raging...

[ChairmanPoo]

side note: The Canadian NGO Foundation for Democratic Advancement did a report on worldwide electoral fairness (a few countries audited so far). In overall scores #1 was Venezuela, and #2 was Finland. Funny enough, USA scored higher than Canada, which surprises me.

Overall Electoral Fairness Audit Scores:

1. Venezuela 85% (A+)
2. Finland 40.75% (F)
3. Lebanon 37.5% (F)
4. Denmark 35% (F)
4. Russia 35% (F)
6. Argentina 32.5% (F)
7. United States 30% (F)
8. Canada 25.75% (F)
9. Mexico 22.5% (F)
10. Tunisia (under Ben Ali) 10% (F)
11. Cameroon 2.5% (F)
12. Yemen (under Saleh) 1.25% (F)
13. Bahrain 0% (F)
13. Egypt (under Mubarak) 0% (F)
13. Libya (under Gaddafi) 0% (F)
13. Syria (under Bashar al-Assad) 0% (F)

I find this list difficult to believe.

[Realmfighter]

I find this list difficult to believe.

The PDFs are right through that link.

[Reelyanoob]

You probably find it hard to believe because of the high level of anti-Venezuela propaganda the Americans put out.

e.g. some facts about the economy under Chavez :-

GDP more than tripled since he was elected (not crashing and burning as US media claims)

Inflation significantly lower since Chavez elected (not racing towards hyper inflation as US media claims). Inlfation was 38% when he was elected, never got that high again. (It hit 115% in 1997 - they never tell you that, do they?)

These and many other things I like to call "facts" are easily checked.

Here's a report on the 10th anniversary of Chavez's government (by Washington-based CEPR NGO) http://venezuelanalysis.com/indicators (PDF).

One example - once the socialists wrestled the control of the national oil company from the old oligarchy in 2003, the economy grew by an average of 13.5% per annum for 5 years straight (2003 - 2008). For 20 years before the socialists were elected, there was no growth at all, but a lot of revenue disappearing. No media coverage of this fact at all, they only cover bad news from Venezuela, not good news. When the old pro-US right-wing government had 100%+ inflation, that was also not newsworthy. Now, any time inflation goes near 30%, they talk about "hyper-inflation" because there's a socialist government elected.

Also, overall government spending and military spending by Venezuela is a lot lower than their "capitalist" neighbours, not higher as you might believe if you trust the media. USA government spends 40% of GDP, Venezuela: about 20-25% of GDP.

Venezuela Military spending is 1.2% of GDP, which puts paid to media theories that Chavez is triggering an "arms race". Also Chavez has signed defence treaties with all other nations in South America (UNASUR, South American Defence Council, etc), and is a major proponent of regional integration and friendship treaties, which seems at odds with the idea that he's isolated and is threatening his neighbors with invasion.

As a comparison, Colombia spent 3.4% GDP on military, and USA spent 4.06% GDP. Also, Colombia is they type of country that bombs neighboring countries and claims they are all terrorist nations out to destroy Colombia (see bombing of Ecuador in 2008). Venezuela was labelled the aggressor by the US media for telling the Colombians he'd stand up for Ecuador if Colombia attacked them again.

I get my figures from CIA world fact book, btw.

[ChairmanPoo]

No, I find it hard to believe because of the level of social unrest that afflicts Venezuela. Chavez is not Satan, granted (his elections have repeatedly passed international observer checks), but I doubt he's santa either. (among other things, he's been on the "more state control over internet" camp, which makes for strange bedfellows, when you think about it)

Besides, I did a quick check to the pdf's summary at the top (no time for anything more at the moment, I'm afraid) suggests that they gave Venezuela that high a rating basing themselves mostly on their constitution, without going further onto what actually goes on in the country..



The fact that Lebanom rates so high in the list also adds to the "dubious points", as far as I'm concerned.

There's more, actually: I found the foundation's stated principles to be a bit contradictory. I'll go into this when I come back in 3-4 hours.

[Reelyanoob]

Sorry but that's also Bullshit.

http://maoistrebelnews.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/no-internet-censorship-in-venezuela-proof/

No Internet Censorship in Venezuela: Proof
This information comes from Correo del Orinoco International.

According to BBC Mundo, there is no evidence of Internet censorship in Venezuela.

The article, titled Internet Censorship Map and The War Over Payments, reports on an investigation by OpenNet, a joint initiative between Harvard Law School and Citizen Lab of the University of Toronto, regarding countries that censor Internet, the type of content that is censored and how it is done.

A new online tool, the Global Internet Filtering Map, evaluates the type content that countries censor, such as political content that expresses views in opposition to those of the current government, or that related to human rights, freedom of expression, minority rights, and religious movements; social content related to sexuality, gambling, and illegal drugs and alcohol, as well as other topics that may be socially sensitive or perceived as offensive; conflict and security content related to armed conflicts, border disputes, separatist movements, and militant groups; and internet tools such as web sites that provide e-mail, internet hosting, search, translation, telephone and services.

In every category no evidence was found of Internet censorship in Venezuela. Other countries with no evidence of Internet censorship include Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico, Chile and Paraguay. However, in the United States, Colombia, Peru, Brazil and Argentina some type of censorship was detected.

They pinged a whole pile of stuff in every country. There's no IP addresses blocked in Venezuela at all.


BTW: you do realize that the constitution of Venezuela was authored in a process initiated by the Socialists. Before that, there were not referendums, at all, everything was decided by Congress, and they could change the constitution just with a congressional vote. Now, any changes require public referendums. The constitution and referendums are due solely to the socialists. (in 1999 they held a referendum on constitutional change, then they had special elections for a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution, then there was another referendum on the new constitution, NONE of these things was required by previous law)

Also, the constitution brought in citizen-initiated recall elections for ALL elected officials, including the President. He faced one in 2006. This change was also not required by Venezuela's pre-existing laws/constitution, but was fought for by the Socialist party. The new constitution also recognizes indigenous rights/native languages as official state languages, and strengthens women's rights.

Finally, consider the main innovation under Chavez which the US media WILL NOT TOUCH

the community councils model:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_Communal_Councils

- voluntary associations of 150-400 families. If you don't like the council, quit, and get enough friends together to form your own.

[ChairmanPoo]

There's not at the moment, but Chavez has openly supported such initiatives.

Also, that whatever was before was worse does not necessarily make the current status quo grand..

[Reelyanoob]

Hmmm so "a shitload better than before" just isn't good enough if the government happens to have "socialist" in the party name?

- Universal healthcare
- Universal College education
- higher growth
- lower inflation
- lower infant mortality
- LESS government shooting at people (see 1989 the Venezuelan government massacred 300+ protesters, also during the 2002 anti-Chavez coup, the right-wing opposition shot Chavez's followers and shot their own followers in the head with snipers to claim the socialists did it)

Cosidering that the potential opposition shoots it's own supporters to blame the other guy, I'd go with Chavez.

There's a 90 minute doco on the coup here in English (with subtitled Spanish):
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

Here's an out-take from the doco (beware: this shows the Chavez supporters being shot in the head. Very graphic!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb85x5RPZfg

[Vector]

Anyway, I really doubt Vector wants this to derail onto a major anarchy tangent.

Quoted for truth.

[Truean]

*Strolls in and casually rerails after sitting down nicely *

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unemployment-rose-to-92-apf-2094293163.html?x=0

Unemployment is more like 14 or 15% in real terms, because everyone knows it is understated. If you send out 800 resumes and give up then you are no longer "unemployed." Success! See also that there are about 45 Million people in the US on food stamps (I'll dig up where I cited it back in a previous post if anyone cares).

People think propaganda will fix shit, it won't. If anything, it makes things worse. Every time there's another "jobs report projection" the price of oil goes up and that hurts the entire economy yet more.... Seriously, this isn't "supply and demand," this is pure speculation and seeing how much they can gouge the shit out of everyone. Regulate these speculators out of existence, because they have no idea what they are doing. Just because Oil has an "inelastic demand curve" does not mean you can charge whatever the crap you want. Moreover, there is no such thing as a truly inelastic demand curve, because at some point you simply can't afford it at all. Demand is ABILITY and willingness to pay....

[freeformschooler]

Just because Oil has an "inelastic demand curve" does not mean you can charge whatever the crap you want. Moreover, there is no such thing as a truly inelastic demand curve, because at some point you simply can't afford it at all. Demand is ABILITY and willingness to pay....

I agree but I think you should probably word that as "does not mean you SHOULD charge" consider oil being what it is, we've seen some truly preposterous prices and people will still sell their soul for it. They've (the oil companies) proved that if they don't jack it up all at once they certain can charge what they want.

[Truean]

[sigh]

To a certain degree yes. However, this is a hostage situation and what they are holding hostage is the entire economy....

Oil is a vast input good, pretty much every area of commerce needs it. If food is what keeps humans going, then oil is what keeps economy going....

Also for those who might not know an inelastic demand curve is supposed to be this bullshit:
http://abbyseconblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/

Economists literally think the demand curve is a straight line.... This is bullshit and why the speculation on the NYSE and others continues. Every single demand curve has some slope. The idea that it is straight up and down, like I was taught in college, is crap. If tomorrow gas reached $20/gallon, demand would drop rapidly because people simply couldn't afford it (society itself would also go straight to hell). That's a slope and therefore the damn thing isn't a straight vertical line....

[Leafsnail]

Not to mention that such a huge price would start to make the alternatives much more attractive.

[Truean]

Not to mention that such a huge price would start to make the alternatives much more attractive.

Substitution Effects.

Granted. However, we have no viable large scale alternatives, due to technology concerns. The closest we have are the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt, which due to cost, limited range and lack of widespread charging stations, won't do. Moreover we don't have the viable infrastructure for mass transit to really work.