Semantics and Chavez

[marksman]

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...

Um... Isn't the minister a public officer? I'm confused.

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.

The problem with corruption is that getting things done doesn't depend on compliance with the law, but rather on dealing with the right people. It doesn't matter so much if it's people putting money in their own pockets or the party's pockets. What matters is that corruption distorts the entire system and Venezuela is pretty darn corrupt, even by Latin American standards.

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.

Then you can only imagine how bad it is in Venezuela, which is even more corrupt!

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.

Because CEOs are accountable to their board and shareholders. Ortega was publicly professing that he was an honest politician who was cleaning out corruption and then went on a spending spree with public dollars for which he did not account. I'm just using it to show that just because Chavez has not been accused of corruption does not mean he's clean. We all thought Ortega was clean and turned out to be untrue.

But really, reasonably high wages for government officials is not corruption.

Ortega was not supposed ot be making enough money to go on a Sachs Fifth Avenue shopping spree. It was misuse of public funds.

That's why I'd be much more suspicious towards major government takeovers here, than I am about Chavez' propositions.

I don't understand that. Every indication is that corruption is much worse in Venezuela. Chavez talks a good game, but there has been no observable change in corruption. Corruption indicates the government is not being subject to proper oversight. Is the vaunted press of Venezuela effective in fighting corruption? Apparently not. Is the opposition party? Apparently not. Why on earth would you think either of these groups would be able to ensure nationalized Venezuela petroleum is non-corrupt when they haven't been able to clean up any other portion of Venezuelan government?

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.

What's your evidence?

From what I can tell, after deregulation from the last time Venezuela nationalized utilities, Venezuelan industries were rapidly modernizing, serving customers and remaining competitive.
Article.
Article
Article

Venezuela's communication industry was robust. It was controlled by Western companies that insist on verified bookeeping for their shareholders. (You know, the same bookeeping you consider some of the most thorough in the world.) I'm sure there was some corruption, but I don't think it was anything near what Venezuela government labors under. The idea that government control by Venezuelan government will decrease, rather than increase, corruption is counter to any evidence I can locate.

But we have a monopoly here. If you call it profits or corruption doesn't matter much here - the money is lost either way.

But profits can be taxed. Corruption is simply lost.

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.

You seriously think that corruption is better than monopoly? Let be correct that. You think a monopoly run by a corrupt government is better than a monopoly being overseen by Western-style investors?

it would surely make more sense to transfer inefficient workers to somewhere where they can make themselves useful, than to lay them off.

That assumes there is some magical place where ineffecient workrs with no fear of unemployment can be transformed into productive happy workers. If you know of such a wondrous location, please inform any of the Sttate-planned economies in the world. They would love to be able to start competing with the rest of us.

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.

Then prepare to be surprised. Venezuelan companies that have not been nationalized are owned in significant part by American and European companies that insist on very strict reporting. Why? Because those investing companies have to report their actions to their own shareholders and government regulators and those books better well be accurate!

Will Venezuela demand of itself the same stringent bookkeeping that Western companies demand of its subsidiaries? The corruption index would indicate that to be very unlikely.

Venezuela's political opposition is clearly very well funded.

But utterly unable/unwilling to fight corruption in the current Venezuelan government. How will they improve that track record once the government expands to include the petroleum and telecommunications industries?

That's because they have an awful lot of people getting killed.

Not as many people as get killed in Cameroon or Burundi, two nations near to them on the free press index. Clearly, other forces are at work.

it's arguably another failure of the Chavez administration that it continues.

Continues? Chavez has been in power since 1998 (save for a four-day long coup)! He's had eight years. How long are we supposed to wait?

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.

So much for the idea that free press can counter corruption, eh?

 

[Merko]

Um... Isn't the minister a public officer? I'm confused.

Yes. And they may all be corrupt. However, from what I've gathered after 6 months in this country (and I don't really pay attention to the local news that much) there has been more or less substantiated allegations towards only half of them, perhaps. I know some people around here consider some ministers to be at least partially honest. I'm not so sure myself.

It doesn't matter so much if it's people putting money in their own pockets or the party's pockets.

Sure. But it means looking out for different things. Your usage of the word 'cronies' suggested to me it would be the kind of people making a personal profit. Maybe I just invented this connection myself. At any rate, watching for a sudden increase in luxury for Venezuelan government people may not be the best way to spot corruption.

Then you can only imagine how bad it is in Venezuela, which is even more corrupt!

I doubt it. Far as I know, there is one ongoing affair involving some person reasonably close to Chavez.

Ortega was not supposed ot be making enough money to go on a Sachs Fifth Avenue shopping spree. It was misuse of public funds.

Source? According to Wikipedia it appears Ortega did misappropriate funds, taking a confiscated estate for himself. That seems like something entirely different than buying an expensive watch.. which I do not see why a president could not afford.

Why on earth would you think either of these groups would be able to ensure nationalized Venezuela petroleum is non-corrupt when they haven't been able to clean up any other portion of Venezuelan government?

You keep making this government/corporate distinction. I believe they would be more able to keep the government in check, than the private industry.

What's your evidence?

Here is a very interesting critique of the TI index.

But at any rate, how does that index support the allegation of corruption by the Chavez administration any more than it supports allegations of corruption in the Venezuelan oil industry?

From what I can tell, after deregulation from the last time Venezuela nationalized utilities, Venezuelan industries were rapidly modernizing, serving customers and remaining competitive.

I find it hard to understand how two articles from subcontractors of one Venezuelan company would prove anything about the Venezuelan industry, or even of that single company. You're implying that when they were nationalised, these companies did absolutely nothing, so any sign of activity must be an improvement?

The third article is apparently about people offering mobile phones for rent to pedestrians on the streets of Caracas. This doesn't sound remotely modern or competitive to me.

I'm sure there was some corruption, but I don't think it was anything near what Venezuela government labors under.

Well you're sure of that, I'm not. I don't think either one of us have offered any sort of proof, this way or that. I think the Venezuelan private sector is highly corrupt - you think the government is.

You seriously think that corruption is better than monopoly? Let be correct that. You think a monopoly run by a corrupt government is better than a monopoly being overseen by Western-style investors?

Western investors (and I assume you mean their auditors) don't oversee profits coming out of Latin America. Again, these profits are increased by siphoning off funds, outside the taxable profits. This is the kind of corruption I'm talking about.

Will Venezuela demand of itself the same stringent bookkeeping that Western companies demand of its subsidiaries?

These companies certainly don't mind getting profits way beyond what is indicated to the Venezuelan government for tax purposes. And as long as they get that, they probably don't mind too much if the directors take their own fair share, as well.

How will they improve that track record once the government expands to include the petroleum and telecommunications industries?

You haven't provided any evidence at all for high-level corruption in the Venezuelan government.

Not as many people as get killed in Cameroon or Burundi, two nations near to them on the free press index. Clearly, other forces are at work.

Sources? I think Venezuela might well compete with those two countries in the violence department.

But if it's something else, what is it that you're suggesting? The Venezuelan government is secretly jailing journalists, it's just that the human rights organisations are unaware, and the opposition doesn't want to use this against Chavez?

Continues? Chavez has been in power since 1998 (save for a four-day long coup)! He's had eight years. How long are we supposed to wait?

I said this is arguably a failure of his administration, didn't I?

 

[marksman]

Your usage of the word 'cronies' suggested to me it would be the kind of people making a personal profit. Maybe I just invented this connection myself.

Bingo. Crony just means they have a personal loyalty to someone they put ahead of their public office. One can be a party crony. In fact, the word crony doesn't have any inference of personal aggrandizement, as far as I am aware.

I doubt it. Far as I know, there is one ongoing affair involving some person reasonably close to Chavez.

You keep looking at it as a problem with people lining their pockets, even after agreeing with me that's not the sole problem.

Source?

It's not easy to find sources for an event that occurred more than twenty years ago, Merko. It was a $3,500 shopping spree. This article, quoting the New York Times, cites the spree being paid for on a credit card in the name of the Nicaraguan Mission, not Daniel Ortega's personal account. I see no reference to Ortega reimbursing Nicaragua for the spree. It was paid for with public monies. Really, Merko, is it so hard to believe Daniel Ortega used public money for personal expenses? It was pretty big news in the 1980's when it happened because at the time, Ortega was talking about shortages and belt-tightening in Nicaragua.

something entirely different than buying an expensive watch.. which I do not see why a president could not afford.

Maybe he could afford it. but he chose to use public money anyway.

You keep making this government/corporate distinction. I believe they would be more able to keep the government in check, than the private industry.

But they haven't kept the government in check.

Here is a very interesting critique of the TI index.

An article that is easily rebutted, as it claims TI doesn't monitor Western patterns of birbery, and yet they have a bribery index. (Sweden is the second biggest payor of bribes, by the way.) Other than that, he is countering TI's survey with anecdotes.

Apologists for corruption always blame the messenger. The author here claims that TI's big benefactor is "Balfour Beatty". Actually, this is an outright lie. The author is reporting this exchange in which an attorney affiliated with TI reported a conversation he had with an officer of Balfour Beatty bragging about paying a bribe in Malaysia. No report of Balfour Beatty being a benefactor to TI. That's like claiming Deep Throat was a benefactor of the Washington Post during Watergate!

I strongly advise you to learn more about Transparency International is you have any interest in Latin America or corruption in general. They are a noble organization and to credit allegations like the ones made in the article you cited is laughable.

In fact, TI has reported on Balfour Beatty's complicity in corruption! Your article is nothing more than a pro-Chavez blog.

But at any rate, how does that index support the allegation of corruption by the Chavez administration any more than it supports allegations of corruption in the Venezuelan oil industry?

I've explained this to you. The Venezuelan government is reported as being one of the more corrupt countries in Latin America. The Venezuelan companies that Chavez is nationalizing used to be givernmed by Western democracies, which you acknowledge has stringent oversight to help limit corruption. Logically, replacing these companies with a corrupt government will not cecrease corruption.

You claim that the opposition parties and "free press" will keep the nationalized companies straight. But that's obviously false because those entities have been utterly unable to make a dent in Venezuelan corruption. So there is no reaosn to believe they will operate any differently with respect to nationalized industries.

I find it hard to understand how two articles from subcontractors of one Venezuelan company would prove anything about the Venezuelan industry

That "one Venezuelan company" is the largets of the companies Chavez is nationalizing. It is showing the progress that has been made in the industry. What progress was made under those industries before they were privatized? none. Show me otherwise.

You're implying that when they were nationalised, these companies did absolutely nothing, so any sign of activity must be an improvement?

If you think those companies made progress in the industry while nationalized, then show me some evidence.

The third article is apparently about people offering mobile phones for rent to pedestrians on the streets of Caracas. This doesn't sound remotely modern or competitive to me.

Then you know squat about the telecommunications industry. Getting phones to the populace is a huge development for a country that had limited phone service before then.

I don't think either one of us have offered any sort of proof, this way or that. I think the Venezuelan private sector is highly corrupt - you think the government is.

I did provide evidence. You responded with an unsubstantiated article attacking Transparency International for a benefactor they don't have. TI is one of the world's more respected watchdog groups. It's like claiming Amnesty International is run by former officers of the KGB.

Western investors (and I assume you mean their auditors) don't oversee profits coming out of Latin America. Again, these profits are increased by siphoning off funds, outside the taxable profits. This is the kind of corruption I'm talking about.

Yes, Western auditors do oversee profits coming from their Latin American subsidiaries. I've helped them do it. They have to do it or their shareholders would prevent them from investing in the region.

These companies certainly don't mind getting profits way beyond what is indicated to the Venezuelan government for tax purposes. And as long as they get that, they probably don't mind too much if the directors take their own fair share, as well.

Evidence? Anything?

You haven't provided any evidence at all for high-level corruption in the Venezuelan government.

Straw man.

Sources? I think Venezuela might well compete with those two countries in the violence department.

Wrong. Burundi's violence rate is twice that of Venezuela and Burundi's is seven times as much. Amnesty International has reported major civil rights abuses and quashing of political dissent by the Chavez administration.

But if it's something else, what is it that you're suggesting? The Venezuelan government is secretly jailing journalists, it's just that the human rights organisations are unaware, and the opposition doesn't want to use this against Chavez?

It's not so secret. Read the Amnesty International report on abuses in Venezuela.

I said this is arguably a failure of his administration, didn't I?

When you use words like "arguably" it indicates that you don't really believe it to be the cause, and you hope other things are to blame.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's like claiming Amnesty International is run by former officers of the KGB.

Do you mean to say it isn't?

J/K

DR

 

[Beerina]

amazing how you managed to construe a fiction out of misreading what was plainly written.

A talent, a veritable talent!

So someone who happens to loudly proclaim that he (or she) is a "socialist" is free to grasp power, consolidate it and then enforce the power of the state as one entity is a 'socialist" whereas someone who grasps power, sonsolidates and enforces it as one entity while wearing a balck shirt - is a fascist? It's a question of wardrobe then?

If you are a dictator and wear tweeds you are a socialist, if you wear sort of butch looking outfits, you're a fascist?

A socialist takes over the industries (typically run by people he shared a prep school with and they used to tease him about his commoner heritage) using a populist rallying cry of "for the People!"

A fascist takes over the industries, but leaves them nominally in control of private hands, using a populist rallying cry of "for the Motherland".

The difference is important to people with an incorrect worldview of a left-right political spectrum analysis, and very minor to people with a statist-vs-freedom worldview political spectrum analysis.

 

[Merko]

You keep looking at it as a problem with people lining their pockets, even after agreeing with me that's not the sole problem.

Not at all. Lula was seriously shaken by a corruptions scandal involving money being stolen by his party. Eventually, he evaded personal blame and fired the people allegedly responsible, and was re-elected. We can theorise about the Venezuelan high-level government being corrupt, but unless you can come up with real examples, this is just theories.

This article, quoting the New York Times, cites the spree being paid for on a credit card in the name of the Nicaraguan Mission, not Daniel Ortega's personal account.

Fair enough. It seems he did engage in 'petty corruption'. And somewhat more serious, by misappropriating government estates.

But they haven't kept the government in check.

That's your theory, which we are debating.

An article that is easily rebutted, as it claims TI doesn't monitor Western patterns of birbery, and yet they have a bribery index.

I think his point is that this is not considered in the main index, as if bribe paying would not be an indicative of corruption just as bribe-taking. Either way, one possible flawed argument doesn't invalidate his other arguments.

(Sweden is the second biggest payor of bribes, by the way.)

I have to forgive you for this mistake, because I have committed the same one myself. I once made a fool out of myself by confronting a Swedish politician with the same statistics from an earlier year, showing Sweden in a high position. But.. being high on the list is good, not bad.

However, it all depends on who you ask. I have seen another survey asking people in India about which countries are perceived as most corrupt. And Sweden, which is second-best in the world according to that index, comes out as the most corrupted in those polls. In India, Sweden is synonymous with corruption because of the 80's affair that toppled Rajiv Gandhi.

Other than that, he is countering TI's survey with anecdotes.

Not only. His most interesting claim is:
"What is the source of the Transparency International corruption index? It runs "surveys" of corrupt countries by asking corrupt corporate leaders which nations they consider corrupt."

If we remove the invectives - is it true that the index is determined by the subjective opinions of corporate leaders? If so, then we don't have to be CTers to understand that the Venezuelan corporate leaders are highly antagonistic and suspicious of the Chavez administration.

This is what TI claim themselves:
"The CPI ranks more than 150 countries by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys."
(my emphasis)

This seems to support the suspicion that for a case like Venezuela, you're going to get a very biased result.

I've explained this to you. The Venezuelan government is reported as being one of the more corrupt countries in Latin America.

But this does not appear to be based on actual cases of corruption, but by perceptions.

Additionally, it is widely agreed, even among staunch Chavez opponents, that one major reason for his popularity was immense impopularity of the previous kleptocratic governments.

When googling for Venezuelan corruption, a clear pattern emerges. On the one hand, we find a lot of articles referring to the TI index and making a lot out of that. These are usually anti-Chavez bloggers, think-tanks, and the like. I can't find them citing any actual cases of corruption though. It's just the 'everybody knows' kind of talk. But the TI index itself is based on perceptions, not collected statistics of actual corruption.

The Venezuelan companies that Chavez is nationalizing used to be givernmed by Western democracies, which you acknowledge has stringent oversight to help limit corruption. Logically, replacing these companies with a corrupt government will not cecrease corruption.

We're running in circles. These democracies do not have stringent oversight to limit corruption in Latin America. And just repeating that the Venezuelan government is corrupt will not make it true.

You claim that the opposition parties and "free press" will keep the nationalized companies straight. But that's obviously false because those entities have been utterly unable to make a dent in Venezuelan corruption. So there is no reaosn to believe they will operate any differently with respect to nationalized industries.

Yes, there are in fact several reasons. First, the press is overwhelmingly anti-Chavez, while the current corrupt corporations are sided with the press and the opposition. So while, at the moment, they have no interest in exposing corruption, they would have such an interest for a nationalised oil business.
Second, public finances are expected to have open book keeping, unlike private ones. This makes scrutiny easier.

That "one Venezuelan company" is the largets of the companies Chavez is nationalizing. It is showing the progress that has been made in the industry. What progress was made under those industries before they were privatized? none.

They were never nationalised under the Chavez government. If they were inefficient then, it is no more an argument for they being inefficient under the Chavez government, than Enron is an argument for why they will be inefficient when being private.

Wrong. Burundi's violence rate is twice that of Venezuela and Burundi's is seven times as much.

Uh. That links shows political killings. The freedom of press index in influenced by how dangerous it is to report in a country, for any reason, not just political killings. I do not think that either the Venezuelan government or the opposition is frequently involved in killing journalists, but the overall level of violence is very high.

Amnesty International has reported major civil rights abuses and quashing of political dissent by the Chavez administration.

I don't think this report supports your conclusion. Yes, there are serious ongoing civil rights abuses, perhaps most importantly the de-facto impunity for police transgressions (we have that in Sweden too, by the way, but the transgressions are usually not as severe, nor as common). However, that report does not give much substance for allegations that the Chavez administration would be violently quashing political dissent. It blames the government for frequently not handling violent oppositional demonstrations in a good way:

"While many opposition supporters took part in legitimate peaceful demonstrations, a significant number of these protests were violent with the use of barricades, stones, Molotov cocktails, and fireworks and, in some cases, firearms. It is the duty of the state to guarantee public order, respecting the rule of law in accordance with international standards. However, the response of the Guardia Nacional and other branches of the security forces frequently involved excessive use of force, apparently contributing to spiralling violence rather than preventing or controlling it."

It's not so secret. Read the Amnesty International report on abuses in Venezuela.

But that report gives zero accounts of oppositional journalists or newsmakers being imprisoned, disappeared, murdered, beaten or otherwise seriously mistreated by the government. It mentions allegations from the government that some media would be to blame for violence. Well, watch the video linked above by dann, and try to tell me such accusations may not be merited.

When you use words like "arguably" it indicates that you don't really believe it to be the cause, and you hope other things are to blame.

It indicates that I don't have enough information to give a definite verdict. Anyone claiming that it would be easy to reduce violence or corruption has a very simplistic view of things. Of course it is always a failure not to do so, but if failure is a disgrace or not depends on the circumstances.

 

[marksman]

We can theorise about the Venezuelan high-level government being corrupt

Why? I'm not talking about corruption limited to high-level officials. You keep injecting that straw man.

I think his point is that this is not considered in the main index

Does he say that's his point? (Hint: No.) He says TI doesn't look out for bribes, but it does. he doesn't say "in the main index". He is misrepresenting TI's purposes, just as he misrepresents TI being in the pocket of the "british Halliburton".

Either way, one possible flawed argument doesn't invalidate his other arguments.

I count three flawed arguments
1) That TI doesn't look at bribery. (It does.)
2) That TI is in the pockets of Balfour Beatty. (It's not.)
3) That TI measures corruption based on the perceptions of corporate executives (it doesn't)

I have seen another survey asking people in India about which countries are perceived as most corrupt. And Sweden, which is second-best in the world according to that index, comes out as the most corrupted in those polls.

And yet, TI doesn't rank Sweden near the bottom. Why? because TI doesn't use popularity polls. It polls "experts".

is it true that the index is determined by the subjective opinions of corporate leaders?

No. (Well, it is one of many components. See my fuller answer below.)

"The CPI ranks more than 150 countries by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys."

Only a small number of those experts and opinion surveys are from corporate leaders, Merko. Plus, TI uses statistical analysis to weed out biases in responses from any of its correspondents.

Transparency international lists its methodology. While some business leaders are polled, most data comes from academics, policy experts, and Economist Intelligence Unit. Your author is simply distorting the facts when he implies that TI is some sort of tool of corporate bigwigs.

Please stop relying on this article in your efforts to disparage Transparency International. None of his arguments are true and he gives no factual basis to back up his article. This organization is not in the pockets of corporate bigwigs. Other nations have relied on it to ensure that their own efforts at development are untainted by corruption. Bulgaria. Australia. United Kingdom. It is regularly relied upon by The United Nations Development Program when it tries to determine how to allocate funds and programs to combat corruption. Even your old pal Chomsky relies on TI's figures.

I have found very few artciles critical of TI, other than your Chavez apologist. Here is an article decryign Zimbabwe's attempts to smear TI. Otherwise, the only cticism I find is not that TI is inaccurate with respect to political corruption but that it has been slow to devise means of measuring institutional corruption in securities and commodities markets. Meaning, the criticism has been, not that TI is wrong, but that it could do even more. I'm not sure TI would disagree on that point.

But this does not appear to be based on actual cases of corruption, but by perceptions.

The website explains why using actual cases of corruption would be skewed. Different nations have different standards of what corruption they prosecute and whether corruption is evern reported. Obviously, corruption in Russia doesn't get reported because Russia's press is shackled. Using "actual cases", Russia would seem to be less corrupt than it is.

Additionally, it is widely agreed, even among staunch Chavez opponents, that one major reason for his popularity was immense impopularity of the previous kleptocratic governments.

No crap. That has nothing to do with whether Chavez has actually performed better than his predecessors on the issue of corruption.

But the TI index itself is based on perceptions, not collected statistics of actual corruption.

You seem to think TI's index is based on the anti-Chavez bloggers. They are not. Their methodology is a lot more sophisticated than you give them credit for.

And just repeating that the Venezuelan government is corrupt will not make it true.

I gave you the evidence. The most respected corruption watchdog organization in the world. Your only attack on it has been to cite a blog that blatantly misrepresents TI and its methodfology and your own ill-informed understanding of TI.

I'm sorry, Merko. I can't download the knowledge of TI into your brain and I suspect that you don't really want to acknowledge how corrupt Venezuela is. For some reason it is more comforting to think that TI's statistics are flawed, even though you have done absolutely no research to determine whether that is.

Second, public finances are expected to have open book keeping, unlike private ones.

DO you even know what Venezuela's regulations are for "open bookkeeping"? You keep assuming Venezuela has open accounts and, frankly, I have my suspicions. But since you're the one claiming Venezuela does have open bookkeeping, it is your responsibility to produce some sort of evidence for it.

Uh. That links shows political killings. The freedom of press index in influenced by how dangerous it is to report in a country, for any reason, not just political killings.

You claimed that Venezuelan violence is worse or as bad as Cameroon. Do you have any evidence of it? The closest I could find was a report on political violence. Otherwise, you're just inventing stuff.

I do not think that either the Venezuelan government or the opposition is frequently involved in killing journalists, but the overall level of violence is very high.

Your evidence that Venezuelan violence is as high as Burundi or Cameroon?

As for Amnesty Intenational, here is the full report on the nation. I quote:

A human rights defender was killed and a number of others received threats. There were reports of harassment of journalists. Political killings were reported in the border region with Colombia and many of those fleeing the Colombian conflict continued to be at risk.

Media

The mutual hostility between private media organizations and the government continued. A number of journalists were reportedly threatened and attacked, but the authorities apparently failed to conduct effective investigations. The media accused the authorities of seeking to use administrative powers to curtail press freedoms.

* * *​

In July the Supreme Court ruled against the implementation of a general recommendation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to abolish antiquated laws on disrespect for authority. The laws violated international standards on freedom of expression by potentially criminalizing the publication of allegations against public officials.​

When are you going to acknowledge that Venezuela is not nearly as robust as you believe it to be? Are you going to reject Amnesty International's report as well as Transparency international's findings? What evidence are you going to accept and do you have any intention of doing anything to confirm your opinions on Venezuela?

Please note that I am not citing anti-Chavez bloggers as evidence. I am not citing the United States State department or other groups with an axe to grind. I'm citing Amnesty International and Transparency International, the two most prestigious and well-respected NGOs on this planet regarding human rights and anti-corruption, respectively.

What have you cited? A Chavez apologist.

Of course it is always a failure not to do so, but if failure is a disgrace or not depends on the circumstances.

He's been in power almost ten years and runs one of the more corrupt governments in the world. What does it take for you to acknopwledge he is a disgrace on this score, Merko?

 

[steverino]

Why? I'm not talking about corruption limited to high-level officials. You keep injecting that straw man.


Does he say that's his point? (Hint: No.) He says TI doesn't look out for bribes, but it does. he doesn't say "in the main index". He is misrepresenting TI's purposes, just as he misrepresents TI being in the pocket of the "british Halliburton".


I count three flawed arguments
1) That TI doesn't look at bribery. (It does.)
2) That TI is in the pockets of Balfour Beatty. (It's not.)
3) That TI measures corruption based on the perceptions of corporate executives (it doesn't)


And yet, TI doesn't rank Sweden near the bottom. Why? because TI doesn't use popularity polls. It polls "experts".


No. (Well, it is one of many components. See my fuller answer below.)


Only a small number of those experts and opinion surveys are from corporate leaders, Merko. Plus, TI uses statistical analysis to weed out biases in responses from any of its correspondents.

Transparency international lists its methodology. While some business leaders are polled, most data comes from academics, policy experts, and Economist Intelligence Unit. Your author is simply distorting the facts when he implies that TI is some sort of tool of corporate bigwigs.

Please stop relying on this article in your efforts to disparage Transparency International. None of his arguments are true and he gives no factual basis to back up his article. This organization is not in the pockets of corporate bigwigs. Other nations have relied on it to ensure that their own efforts at development are untainted by corruption. Bulgaria. Australia. United Kingdom. It is regularly relied upon by The United Nations Development Program when it tries to determine how to allocate funds and programs to combat corruption. Even your old pal Chomsky relies on TI's figures.

I have found very few artciles critical of TI, other than your Chavez apologist. Here is an article decryign Zimbabwe's attempts to smear TI. Otherwise, the only cticism I find is not that TI is inaccurate with respect to political corruption but that it has been slow to devise means of measuring institutional corruption in securities and commodities markets. Meaning, the criticism has been, not that TI is wrong, but that it could do even more. I'm not sure TI would disagree on that point.


The website explains why using actual cases of corruption would be skewed. Different nations have different standards of what corruption they prosecute and whether corruption is evern reported. Obviously, corruption in Russia doesn't get reported because Russia's press is shackled. Using "actual cases", Russia would seem to be less corrupt than it is.


No crap. That has nothing to do with whether Chavez has actually performed better than his predecessors on the issue of corruption.


You seem to think TI's index is based on the anti-Chavez bloggers. They are not. Their methodology is a lot more sophisticated than you give them credit for.


I gave you the evidence. The most respected corruption watchdog organization in the world. Your only attack on it has been to cite a blog that blatantly misrepresents TI and its methodfology and your own ill-informed understanding of TI.

I'm sorry, Merko. I can't download the knowledge of TI into your brain and I suspect that you don't really want to acknowledge how corrupt Venezuela is. For some reason it is more comforting to think that TI's statistics are flawed, even though you have done absolutely no research to determine whether that is.


DO you even know what Venezuela's regulations are for "open bookkeeping"? You keep assuming Venezuela has open accounts and, frankly, I have my suspicions. But since you're the one claiming Venezuela does have open bookkeeping, it is your responsibility to produce some sort of evidence for it.


You claimed that Venezuelan violence is worse or as bad as Cameroon. Do you have any evidence of it? The closest I could find was a report on political violence. Otherwise, you're just inventing stuff.


Your evidence that Venezuelan violence is as high as Burundi or Cameroon?

As for Amnesty Intenational, here is the full report on the nation. I quote:

A human rights defender was killed and a number of others received threats. There were reports of harassment of journalists. Political killings were reported in the border region with Colombia and many of those fleeing the Colombian conflict continued to be at risk.

Media

The mutual hostility between private media organizations and the government continued. A number of journalists were reportedly threatened and attacked, but the authorities apparently failed to conduct effective investigations. The media accused the authorities of seeking to use administrative powers to curtail press freedoms.

* * *​

In July the Supreme Court ruled against the implementation of a general recommendation by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to abolish antiquated laws on disrespect for authority. The laws violated international standards on freedom of expression by potentially criminalizing the publication of allegations against public officials.​

When are you going to acknowledge that Venezuela is not nearly as robust as you believe it to be? Are you going to reject Amnesty International's report as well as Transparency international's findings? What evidence are you going to accept and do you have any intention of doing anything to confirm your opinions on Venezuela?

Please note that I am not citing anti-Chavez bloggers as evidence. I am not citing the United States State department or other groups with an axe to grind. I'm citing Amnesty International and Transparency International, the two most prestigious and well-respected NGOs on this planet regarding human rights and anti-corruption, respectively.

What have you cited? A Chavez apologist.



He's been in power almost ten years and runs one of the more corrupt governments in the world. What does it take for you to acknopwledge he is a disgrace on this score, Merko?

Man, who has time to read these long posts? If marksman wrote it, rather than read it I'll just say I agree.