• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Semantics and Chavez

Was I wrong to describe him as "acclaimed"? He is indeed acclaimed, isn't he?
The words 'ridiculed', 'disgraced' or even 'prostituted' would seem more natural to me. But never mind, it's no big thing.

If you were to describe Chomsky as "acclaimed" I wouldn't take issue with that. Chomsky is acclaimed. Heck, I'll go ahead and describe Chomsky, Buchanan, Fukuyama, Boron and Zakaria as all people who are "acclaimed".
Ok. I didn't think you would. I wouldn't use the word like that.

Was it really necessary to try to deride me (falsely) as a neoconservative because I happened to agree with Fukuyama on a single point?
Can't see that I did. I derided Fukuyama for being neoconservative, and aside from a way to anticipate upcoming spin from the Bush administration, I don't find much use for him.

You can't see why it would matter that Chavez' nationalization program is likely to drive the management of Venezuelan oil from the country, requiring him to appoint less experienced people? Surely you can see the risks. I'm not saying they are insurmountable.
Good, then we are in agreement.

Mexico eventually recovered after its petroleum nationalization program did the same thing, although even today, Mexico's petroleum company is rife with corruption.
Mexico was corrupt before that, corruption of the oil business was a natural and inevitable consequence. I'm living in a completely corrupted country right now, and I certainly would not advocate nationalisations here under the current circumstances. Venezuela is as far as I know not in that position, I think they can do it.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I happen to believe that competent management adds value to any enterprise, even oil production.
Competent management has little to do with who owns the company. A privately owned corporation can be hurt by corruption and mismanagement just like a public one. It is usually just as disastrous.

I don't think I made that argument. The problem is that countries that are largely dependent on one natural resource rarely develop other industries to cushion fluctuations. Saudi Arabia manages to weather it by running enormous surpluses. But Chavez has promised all sorts of spending that could only be financed by high oil prices.
Or by developing other industries, which Chavez promises to do, and is apparently attempting to do. Will it be successful? I have no idea, but I see no direct causal link between having oil and not developing an industry.

I'm not sure how one goes about "teaching Venezuela a lesson of how to refrain from high-level Kleptocracy". Nor am I certain one can "export values liek freedom of speech"
I would call it 'cultural exchange'. Ideas spread, you know. Chavismo, for what it is, contains policy, not just words. Marxism spread the idea of workers' political power. Leninism spread the idea of suppression of dissent. If Chavismo turns as arguing a high level of freedom of speech, then that idea may spread to Cuba, because Cuba is naturally more open to take ideas from Chavez, than, say, any US president regardless of party, because of history.

I've never seen it done absent military force (and even then I think it's obscenely rare).
I don't think that has ever happened, or ever can happen. In obscenely rare cases, military intervention may not be enough to hinder the cultural transfer of values such as freedom of speech. Usually it blocks all chances of such influence.

As for whether they act like a bloc? They act like allies, as they should. They have common interests, common approaches to problems and common perceived enemies (namely, Bush). But some sort of monolithic bloc? No.
I think we will find that they'll be a bloc in many international venues, such as the UN, and possibly in trade negotiations (though at the moment they are split on that issue).

Heck, Latin America is a studied history in a procession of personality cults. Simon Bolivar, Juan Peron, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Chavez... I doubt Chavez will be the worst or the last.
Yes, it has not done them much good. The man steals all the light, and the policy may develop into something entirely different than what gained him populary in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Can't see that I did. I derided Fukuyama for being neoconservative, and aside from a way to anticipate upcoming spin from the Bush administration, I don't find much use for him.
I forget what the name for that is (poisoing the well?) but using a label like that carelessly, and then discounting the writer's entire body of work, is like me calling you eurotrash, and having established that odius label, discounting all you post.

That is not a very sound position to take, now is it?

DR
 
I forget what the name for that is (poisoing the well?) but using a label like that carelessly, and then discounting the writer's entire body of work, is like me calling you eurotrash, and having established that odius label, discounting all you post.
I think claiming that someone is a producer of prudently phrased ideology, for sale to the sovereign, is something beyond merely an insult.

I'm not familiar with the term 'eurotrash', but it doesn't appear to offer any coherent explanation for why someone would consistently offer politically tailor-made predictions and arguments, rather than any sort of straight analysis.

I don't include every neo-conservative thinker in this category. But I do include Fukuyama. Of course, he might still have some valid arguments, the wise trickster only distorts logic when it is necessary. But I don't consider him an honest thinker.
 
I don't include every neo-conservative thinker in this category. But I do include Fukuyama. Of course, he might still have some valid arguments, the wise trickster only distorts logic when it is necessary. But I don't consider him an honest thinker.
OK, yet (from the other thread) you think Noam Chomsky is? :eek:

Got it.

DR
 
Facist? Wasnt he just recently re-elected??
VENEZUALAN VOTING PAPER

Who would you like as Presidente? Tick one:

[1] Chavez
[2] Chavez
[3] Chavez
[4] Chavez
[5] Chavez
[6] Chavez
[7] Chavez
[8] A visit from the State Security Branch
 
Communism seems to mythologize the future. :)

DR

It absolutely does, which is why communism can be grouped (loosely) with other "progressive"* ideologies, whereas Fascism can be grouped (loosely) with other "conservative" * ideologies.






I use the terms "progressive" and "conservative" as they are usually used by political philosophers, any relationship to how these terms are used in modern American politics is entrily co-incidental.
 
This from today's Washington Post:
In the past couple of weeks Mr. Chávez has shaken up his cabinet to eliminate quasi-independent voices, said he will form a single ruling party and announced plans to govern by decree in the coming year. He has said he will close down the country's most popular television network, which has been critical of his government, eliminate the independence of the Central Bank, and nationalize telephone and electricity companies -- including one partly owned by Verizon and another by Alexandria-based AES. The commercial code will be changed; one minister said the intent is to place new limits on the profits of the remaining private companies. Though some private media will remain, Andres Izarra, the head of a state network and a close collaborator of Mr. Chávez's, declared that the regime's plan is "a communications and information hegemony for the state."
I suspect Venezuela's Augusto Pinochet is waiting in the wings.
 
I suspect Venezuela's Augusto Pinochet is waiting in the wings.
So does Chavez.

But the Post, as usual, is flat out lying. For example, Chavez has not said he "will close down the country's most popular television network". He has said he has considered backing a referendum on the issue. That is bad, but very different from the Post's claims.

I'd also like some sources for the statement that he has "announced plans to govern by decree in the coming year".

It would also be interesting to see their source - and context - of the quote from the TV director, Andres Izarra. Izarra used to be a news director for one of the private companies that are now threatened by a referendum. But he resigned, in the middle of the attempted coup against Chavez - at a point where it still appeared the coup was successful. Now we're supposed to believe he's a corrupted stooge dedicated to strangle the freedom of speech in Venezuela. Here's a response mr Izarra wrote to an earlier allegation by the Post.
 
Merko's link to Andres Izarra said:
The Venezuelan Minister of Communication & Information
Caracas Bob.
Diehl also spoke of the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio & Television as a punitive instrument that won't permit the independent exercise of journalism.

In Andres Izarra's response, we find a story of rights violated in the United States, and attacks against the freedom of information in that country. In conclusion, the press is freer in Venezuela than in the United States.

== snip the body of the article, a critique of Diehl's less than spectacular reportage, and the vile crimes of the Washington post for the past 30 years, and more ==

Instead of your incomplete, cartoonish, and malicious portrait of Venezuelan media and laws, I would have preferred to see, from a respectable "independent newspaper," a balanced analysis of our informative landscape. But I think that it's more likely that we'll find out, in the not-so-distant future, that you too, Mister Diehl, receive money from the State Department.
.
A nice, objective point of view. :rolleyes: How refereshing, complete with a closing ad hom.

DR
 
A nice, objective point of view. :rolleyes: How refereshing, complete with a closing ad hom.
He's responding to Post accusations in an article entitled: "Chavez's Censorship: Where Disrespect Can Land You in Jail". He denies that disrespect can land people in jail in Venezuela, and charges the Post to come up with an example. To set a good standard for a serious debate, he lists specific cases where US citizens have been landed in jail due to their disrespect.

He also gives an official US State Department as source for the statement that the Post was used as a propaganda platform in the 70's.

Izarra's allegations, unlike those in the Post, appear to be verifiable and based on real world facts. We can dispute the generality of those facts, but at least he's bringing honest arguments rather than blanket statements.
 
I wouldn't use the word like that.
The word "acclaimed" means "To praise enthusiastically and often publicly; applaud". Has Fukuyama been enthusiastically applauded? He has. Has Chomsky? Yes. Zakaria? Yep. Boron? Check!

I used the word "acclaimed" to distinguish Fukuyama from unkown commentators. I wanted to emphasize that I wasn't citing to a blogger or, say, some San Fransisco Bay Area antiimmigration group. It doesn't mean I am acclaiming the man.

Can't see that I did [insinuate marksman is a neocon]
You did it when you wrote "Ok, if that's who you call an 'acclaimed historian' (no tongue-in-cheek) then I understand your position in the Chomsky thread a bit better."
You insinuated that my citing Fukuyama (a well-known neocon despite his recent defection from the ideology) explains my dislike for Chomsky. Presuambly because of his views. I note that it had nothign to do with the substance of what I worte, but was merely an attempt to knock me down based on the politics of one of the people I cited.

Mexico was corrupt before that, corruption of the oil business was a natural and inevitable consequence. ... Venezuela is as far as I know not in that position, I think they can do it.
According to Transparency International, an organization that monitors and tracks corruption, Venezuela was one of the 138th most corrupt countries in 2006, out of 163 nations. It was tied with Cameroon, Niger and Ecuador. Mexico was 60th. Your residence of Belize was 66th. In comparison, Your motherland, Sweden, ranked 6th and the USA ranked 20th. (I note in passing that Sweden ranked second (out of 30) in bribe paying, and the US ranked 9th.) Venezuela was also ranked in the next to last category (ie second-worst) when it comes to receiving bribes.

If you wouldn't recommend nationalization in Belize, you really shouldn't recommend it for Veneuela!

Competent management has little to do with who owns the company.
It has to do with the proper incentives to run the company well. Private owners have an incentive to maximize returns on investment. Governments must balance that against employment, security, wages and other interests that while good for the short-term welfare of employees, does nto necessarily translate to overall competitiveness.

Also, a government-run company has no watchdog. In capitalist societies, the government and management are (absent corruption) antagonists, and the government can serve to ensure environmental regulations, employment regulations and other protections are enforced. When the government is in charge of its own company, it is easier for those protections to slip. It is one of the main reaosns Eastern Europe is such an environmental mess.

Or by developing other industries, which Chavez promises to do, and is apparently attempting to do.
Really? I've heard the promises. Do you have support for the notion he's actually doing something about creating non-oil industries for Venezuela? I haven't seen it, but I'm certainly open to having my mind changed on this point.

I see no direct causal link between having oil and not developing an industry.
I wouldn't call it a direct link. I call it institutional ennui. When you've got a cash cow, there's a strong tendency not to dilute it by throwing money at other business that are not as profitable at the moment.

But just like investing, diversification is cushion against economic downturns.

If Chavismo turns as arguing a high level of freedom of speech
Yeah, I really don't perceive Chavism as promoting free speech.

I don't think that has ever happened, or ever can happen. In obscenely rare cases, military intervention may not be enough to hinder the cultural transfer of values such as freedom of speech. Usually it blocks all chances of such influence.
Well, as I said, it's exceptionally rare. So rare, I don't think it's even worth discussing. It's certainly too rare to form the justification for military action.

I think we will find that they'll be a bloc in many international venues, such as the UN, and possibly in trade negotiations (though at the moment they are split on that issue).
I think anti-Americanism is a catalyst for that rather than other broader policy issues. I suspect that the presence of a more friendly American President will cause the natural differences between these three very egotistical men to bubble to the surface. A common enemy does more to cement alliances than common policies.

Yes, it has not done them much good.
Agreed. Personality cults rarely work and never survive the personality. Sadly, Latin America has yet to find a path to progress that doesn't involve being an American puppet or following a demagogue. I think it unfortunate that Venezuela has fallen... again... into the demagoguery trap.
 
He's responding to Post accusations in an article entitled: "Chavez's Censorship: Where Disrespect Can Land You in Jail". He denies that disrespect can land people in jail in Venezuela, and charges the Post to come up with an example. To set a good standard for a serious debate, he lists specific cases where US citizens have been landed in jail due to their disrespect.

He also gives an official US State Department as source for the statement that the Post was used as a propaganda platform in the 70's.

Izarra's allegations, unlike those in the Post, appear to be verifiable and based on real world facts. We can dispute the generality of those facts, but at least he's bringing honest arguments rather than blanket statements.
Yeah, a nice honest argument that Diehl is on the State Department's pay roll.

Cut me a break, Merko.

I found Mr Izarra's rebuttal to be interesting, particularly as it is from a perspective not American, but his own. I too have a long history of cynical regard for the Washington Post, but that's more with their problem in fact checking, which Mr Izarra points out in a few cases, and less to do with reporters on payroll. Mr Izarra's appeal to the CT line weakened his article, which had built its foundation on other points -- the ones based in facts on Venezuelan laws and norms.

To better illustrate the CT problem, Mr Izarra may as well have argued that the US once had legal slavery, therefore there is still legal slavery in the US. Or, the US was once at war with Viet Nam, in the 70's, therefore it is still at war with Viet Nam. He offers no evidence of the State Department paying Diehl, but he makes the charge based on what, a 30 year old case? Weak tea, and an ad hom based on a bias, and as I read the piece, a personal chip on a personal shoulder.

DR
 
You insinuated that my citing Fukuyama (a well-known neocon despite his recent defection from the ideology) explains my dislike for Chomsky.
In my opinion, Fukuyama is everything you accused Chomsky of, many times over. Fact-skewing, using irrelevant factoids for proving a general theory (just take that bridge failure he mentions in this article), and providing a distorted and one-sided view of history. But I'd rather drop this discussion and focus on the actual arguments.

According to Transparency International, an organization that monitors and tracks corruption, Venezuela was one of the 138th most corrupt countries in 2006, out of 163 nations. It was tied with Cameroon, Niger and Ecuador. Mexico was 60th. Your residence of Belize was 66th.
A very good point, I must admit. But I was referring more to government kleptocracy than general perception of corruption. I have no idea how Belize could end up so well, by the way. It is generally accepted that half the government is embezzling funds here - the fact that no one is forced to leave even when indisputable evidence is put forth is rather telling.

It can very well be claimed that Chavez' promised anti-corruption policies have failed miserably. This in itself is of course a warning sign regarding the nationalisations. But when I try to google for accusations that Chavez would be corrupt, the first accusation I find is not against Hugo, but some Marty Chavez in New Mexico.

It seems to me that corruption will hurt Venezuela's oil business no matter who owns and controls it. Why would it get worse with nationalisations? The TI report seem to offer no support for that theory.

It has to do with the proper incentives to run the company well. Private owners have an incentive to maximize returns on investment.
Governments must balance that against employment, security, wages and other interests that while good for the short-term welfare of employees, does nto necessarily translate to overall competitiveness.
I must disagree - the private owners as well as the state have the same incentives, and may equally be tempted to give to much weight to short-term benefits.

I think you confuse it with the issue of monopoly versus competition. That is not relevant here - the Venezuelan oil industry is already a monopoly, and that seems difficult to change. Additionally, competition is most important in industries where innovation, or indeed competitiveness, is a major issue. In the oil industry, it is not so much about bleeding edge competitiveness, as about being at least reasonably efficient in bringing up a certain profit.

Also, a government-run company has no watchdog.
I would argue the exact opposite. Government companies are regularly required to keep open books, and are easily scrutinised by the political opposition and journalists alike. Private companies are generally allowed to keep such information as 'trade secrets' and are thus much harder to watch. The underlying theory is that badly run private companies will be driven out by the competition. But when there is no competition, that can't happen.

In capitalist societies, the government and management are (absent corruption) antagonists, and the government can serve to ensure environmental regulations, employment regulations and other protections are enforced. When the government is in charge of its own company, it is easier for those protections to slip. It is one of the main reaosns Eastern Europe is such an environmental mess.
I would say this is more related to their former lack of freedom of speech and freedom of press, making such issues of little concern for the state.

Yeah, I really don't perceive Chavism as promoting free speech.
I think he gives a very ambivalent impression on the issue. Sometimes he really does seem to be a principled defender of the opposition's right to mud-sling him. Sometimes he gives out these quips about how a referendum to revoke the license of oppositional TV channels might not be a bad idea. To me, the proof lies in the actions. If he indeed does start to take action against the oppositional press, then his words to the contrary are of no value. Presently, freedom of speech appears to rule in practice.
 
A very good point, I must admit. But I was referring more to government kleptocracy than general perception of corruption.
The only way to measure corruption is based on reportage by those with knowledge of the area. There is a separate study for bribery (in which Venezuela fares no better than the rest of Latin America, by the way). By all accounts, Venezuela is a country rife with corruption, much more so than even Mexico and Belize.

I have no idea how Belize could end up so well, by the way.
It's not that Belize is doing particularly well. 66th is pretty lousy. Pretty much anything under a 5.0 rating is pretty darn corrupt. (Malaysia is 5.0, FYI.)

The fact of the matter is, once you get outside Western Europe (excluding Italy), and North America, corruption is the norm. But Venezuela still fares poorly in comparison even to the other corrupt nations of the world.

It is generally accepted that half the government is embezzling funds here - the fact that no one is forced to leave even when indisputable evidence is put forth is rather telling.
I bet Haiti (bottom of the list) would love to have only 50% of its public officers be corrupt! It's all a matter of perspective.

It can very well be claimed that Chavez' promised anti-corruption policies have failed miserably.
Or were for public show. Chances are he merely replaced previous government's cronies with his own, as is typical in Latin America, and particularly prevalent in nations following a cult of personality.

But when I try to google for accusations that Chavez would be corrupt, the first accusation I find is not against Hugo, but some Marty Chavez in New Mexico.
I doubt you'll find allegations that the head of the State itself is corrupt. Heck, until Daniel Ortega made his ill-fated trip to the UN and was caught spending thousands of dollars of his impoverished nation's money on designer sunglasses and jackets, he was considered the next great reformer of Nicaragua! The problem isn't Chavez taking bribes or skimming the Treasury. The problem is a culture of corruption throughout the government that Chavez either is unable to eliminate or unwilling.

It seems to me that corruption will hurt Venezuela's oil business no matter who owns and controls it. Why would it get worse with nationalisations? The TI report seem to offer no support for that theory.
That's not what the TI measures. But it stands to reason. A private company answers to its shareholders and thus has incentives to avoid corruption. One could argue that a government answers to its voters and has the same incentives (and this would certainly help explain Norway' success), but in Venezuela, those incentives appear not to be functioning properly. I would argue that until Venezuela at least reduces its corruption to Saudi levels (a paltry 3.3 on the index), nationalization is unlikely to be an improvement in corporate efficiency.

I must disagree - the private owners as well as the state have the same incentives, and may equally be tempted to give to much weight to short-term benefits.
In theory that may be true, but Venezuela clearly has a corruption problem. The regular incentives don't appear to be functioning there. Replacing corporate governance with corrupt governance seems a step back, at a minimum until Venezuela shows progress in fighting corruption.

I think you confuse it with the issue of monopoly versus competition.
No, the issues I identified have nothing to do with monopoly. The fact is that governments and corporations answer to different constitutencies and therefore have different priorities. Corporations' only incentives are to its board and its shareholders, and those incentives encourage it to cut waste and boost profits. The State's incentives are also to maximize employment and payroll, which discourages the laying off of inefficient workers. In order to remain profitable, the State has added incentives (and a better ability) to look the other way at (or actively conceal) costly envoironmental problems.


Government companies are regularly required to keep open books
But who ensures these books are accurate? The government. That works as well as allowing corporations to report its own figures without oversight. There's a reason companies are required to have independent auditors and why it's a big scandal when the auditors fail (ala Arthur Andersen). Governments audit themselves, a system that is hardly designed to encourage transparency or honesty.

easily scrutinised by the political opposition and journalists alike.
Venezuela's political opposition is very weak. And given that the government will control access to the books of the company, the press' ability to monitor government finances is limited.

I think he gives a very ambivalent impression on the issue. Sometimes he really does seem to be a principled defender of the opposition's right to mud-sling him. Sometimes he gives out these quips about how a referendum to revoke the license of oppositional TV channels might not be a bad idea. To me, the proof lies in the actions. If he indeed does start to take action against the oppositional press, then his words to the contrary are of no value. Presently, freedom of speech appears to rule in practice.

According to Reporters Without Borders, which monitors press freedoms, Venezuela ranks 90th out of 167 nations, tied with places like Cambodia and Qatar. Not an auspicious record. (Sweden is 12th and Belize didn't appear on the list.) In Latin America, only Haiti, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Cuba did worse. I would not say that "freedom of speech appears to rule in practice."
 
Facist? Wasnt he just recently re-elected??

you may want to check your history on whether fascists can get elected.

I sometimes think that the true test of whether they are or are not is whether they can be unelected.
 
I bet Haiti (bottom of the list) would love to have only 50% of its public officers be corrupt! It's all a matter of perspective.
I wasn't talking about public officers. As far as I know, they may well all be corrupt. I was referring to things like the minister commissioning a purchase from his own brother-in-law at double market prices, getting caught, and.. nothing happens. Or another minister running a lot of funds from the ministry into his own company, getting accused of it by a fellow party minister on opposition TV.. and both ministers stay in the government. I'm not saying this second minister is honest. He probably just tried to use the situation to get himself into a better position when his party is defeated by the opposition in the next elections. Everyone knows they will. Everyone knows the reason is corruption, corruption, and corruption. The few independent voices remind that the opposition really weren't any better back when they were in power.. possibly even worse.

Or were for public show. Chances are he merely replaced previous government's cronies with his own, as is typical in Latin America, and particularly prevalent in nations following a cult of personality.
I don't think so. In this case we should probably more look towards what happened in Brazil recently, or in India during Rajiv Gandhi in the 80's. Chavez isn't really the kind who puts the funds to his private account. But like what happened in Brazil and India, there is always a risk that he and his party might try to siphon public funds into the party.

I doubt you'll find allegations that the head of the State itself is corrupt.
Hey, that happens every day here. On a good day, even some of his ministers may deliver the allegation.. and still stay in the government.

Heck, until Daniel Ortega made his ill-fated trip to the UN and was caught spending thousands of dollars of his impoverished nation's money on designer sunglasses and jackets, he was considered the next great reformer of Nicaragua!
That's just muddling the waters. Ortega has thousands of dollars? Funny, nobody complains when company CEOs or even NGO staff gets decent pay while working in these countries. I know Morales thought it was a good propaganda stunt to cut his own monthly wage to $1700. But really, reasonably high wages for government officials is not corruption. In fact, it's a way to stifle corruption. Well-paid - within reason - government workers are more likely to stay on the right side of the law.

The problem isn't Chavez taking bribes or skimming the Treasury. The problem is a culture of corruption throughout the government that Chavez either is unable to eliminate or unwilling.
I completely agree. The problem here in Belize is more of the first kind, however. That's why I'd be much more suspicious towards major government takeovers here, than I am about Chavez' propositions.

In theory that may be true, but Venezuela clearly has a corruption problem. The regular incentives don't appear to be functioning there. Replacing corporate governance with corrupt governance seems a step back, at a minimum until Venezuela shows progress in fighting corruption.
Chavez obviously argues that he fights corruption precisely by replacing a corrupt corporate governance with a straight government governance. The latter part can well be questioned, but I do not doubt that Venezuelan oil is highly corrupt today.

Corporations' only incentives are to its board and its shareholders, and those incentives encourage it to cut waste and boost profits.
But we have a monopoly here. If you call it profits or corruption doesn't matter much here - the money is lost either way. Of course, because it is a monopoly, there is already government regulation to make sure that some of that profit goes to the state. But to avoid that, the board, shareholders, and directors have a very high incentive indeed to siphon funds away from this heavy taxation.

The State's incentives are also to maximize employment and payroll, which discourages the laying off of inefficient workers.
In these instances I very much doubt this is very relevant. Besides, it would surely make more sense to transfer inefficient workers to somewhere where they can make themselves useful, than to lay them off.

But who ensures these books are accurate? The government.
The opposition and the press.

There's a reason companies are required to have independent auditors and why it's a big scandal when the auditors fail (ala Arthur Andersen).
I think you have a somewhat naive US perspective here. The US has excellent laws on corporate accountability compared to probably every other nation in the world. I would be surprised if Venezuelan companies are required to have independent auditors, in a meaningful sense of that word. Heck, I don't think that system is credible in Sweden, even. I'd love to have the US regulation on this matter.

Venezuela's political opposition is very weak. And given that the government will control access to the books of the company, the press' ability to monitor government finances is limited.
Venezuela's political opposition is clearly very well funded. They have a number of TV stations at their disposal. You're assuming that the Venezuelan government would keep the books secret, which is of course possible, but that would be very remarkable indeed. If that happens, sign me up with the anti-Chavez league.

According to Reporters Without Borders, which monitors press freedoms, Venezuela ranks 90th out of 167 nations, tied with places like Cambodia and Qatar. Not an auspicious record.
That's because they have an awful lot of people getting killed. Not on orders from the administration, but by corrupt policemen and rampant general violence. It's been like this for ages, but it's arguably another failure of the Chavez administration that it continues.

(Sweden is 12th and Belize didn't appear on the list.)
Oh, we have a very free press. 50% of the print press is controlled by either of the political parties, which means they both have one newspaper. That's Belize, not Sweden, by the way. ;)
 

Back
Top Bottom