Venezuela's Chavez says cancer has returned

[Franzl]

I love the subtle implications of choosing Chile as the other term of the comparison.

Indeed.

[Zioneer]

I love the subtle implications of choosing Chile as the other term of the comparison.

Pinochet reference? Also, I'm sure Venezuela would be doing great too if they had millions in US backing at some point.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I love the subtle implications of choosing Chile as the other term of the comparison.

Pinochet reference? Also, I'm sure Venezuela would be doing great too if they had millions in US backing at some point.

They are our 5th largest crude oil supplier at about a million barrels a day......that's a few shekels, Z.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I don't think Chavez has killed as many people as Pinochet, so Chile was a very poor example.

Chavez is no Hitler, and I cannot say I wish him death, but I think his removal from office, whether it be by death or him simply not being able to take power come January 10th for health reasons, is a good thing.

You mean the apocalyptic civil war that will begin among his "allies" to succeed him will be a good thing?

You criticized MasterJedi for not knowing enough about foreign affairs, yet you believe an armed conflict will take place in a second world nation because the dictator dies? How did that work out in North Korea? Or Gabon? The Vice President will take over and a string of less charismatic and less entertaining clowns will follow.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1) When did I even interact with MJ?

2) I obviously wasn't talking about an armed conflict (that remains a possibility, but probably not the most likely).

3) CHAVEZ. IS. NOT. A. DICTATOR. For God's sake, how is it possible that this guy makes every single person, right or left, lose any sense of nuance to the point of being completely oblivious of basic facts?!? Being a bad person and a bad leader doesn't make you a dictator.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

1) When did I even interact with MJ?

2) I obviously wasn't talking about an armed conflict (that remains a possibility, but probably not the most likely).

3) CHAVEZ. IS. NOT. A. DICTATOR. For God's sake, how is it possible that this guy makes every single person, right or left, lose any sense of nuance to the point of being completely oblivious of basic facts?!? Being a bad person and a bad leader doesn't make you a dictator.

Forgive me, I mistook you for Franzl. Sorry, did not mean to direct that at you. But why would describe a power struggle taking place behind closed doors as a "apocalyptic civil war." Furthermore, Chavez has banned opposition television for God’s sake! George Bush is what you described as a "bad leader." Chavez is a full blown dictator.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1) When did I even interact with MJ?

2) I obviously wasn't talking about an armed conflict (that remains a possibility, but probably not the most likely).

3) CHAVEZ. IS. NOT. A. DICTATOR. For God's sake, how is it possible that this guy makes every single person, right or left, lose any sense of nuance to the point of being completely oblivious of basic facts?!? Being a bad person and a bad leader doesn't make you a dictator.

Forgive me, I mistook you for Franzl. Sorry, did not mean to direct that at you. But why would describe a power struggle taking place behind closed doors as a "apocalyptic civil war." Furthermore, Chavez has banned opposition television for God’s sake! George Bush is what you described as a "bad leader." Chavez is a full blown dictator.

Infringements to free press occur in democratic and semi-democratic States as well. They can take different proportions, but if you think that in western countries the political power never tries to influence the media that's pretty naive honestly. By your standards, there are a few new leaders who would qualify as dictators (Silvio Berlusconi, who was the private owner of half TV networks and controlled the other half through the state apparatus, is the most obvious example).

On the other hand, there is little doubt that Chavez was the choice of the Venezuelan people in his different elections. There were a few allegations of fraud and certainly a lot of unfair electoral practices, but elections were generally deemed free by external observers and the opposition has been able to fully contest them.

Yeah, Chavez is a pretty awful leader, and certainly a narcissistic clown with authoritarian tendencies, but if words have a meaning, he isn't a dictator.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

1) When did I even interact with MJ?

2) I obviously wasn't talking about an armed conflict (that remains a possibility, but probably not the most likely).

3) CHAVEZ. IS. NOT. A. DICTATOR. For God's sake, how is it possible that this guy makes every single person, right or left, lose any sense of nuance to the point of being completely oblivious of basic facts?!? Being a bad person and a bad leader doesn't make you a dictator.

Forgive me, I mistook you for Franzl. Sorry, did not mean to direct that at you. But why would describe a power struggle taking place behind closed doors as a "apocalyptic civil war." Furthermore, Chavez has banned opposition television for God’s sake! George Bush is what you described as a "bad leader." Chavez is a full blown dictator.

Infringements to free press occur in democratic and semi-democratic States as well. They can take different proportions, but if you think that in western countries the political power never tries to influence the media that's pretty naive honestly. By your standards, there are a few new leaders who would qualify as dictators (Silvio Berlusconi, who was the private owner of half TV networks and controlled the other half through the state apparatus, is the most obvious example).

On the other hand, there is little doubt that Chavez was the choice of the Venezuelan people in his different elections. There were a few allegations of fraud and certainly a lot of unfair electoral practices, but elections were generally deemed free by external observers and the opposition has been able to fully contest them.

Yeah, Chavez is a pretty awful leader, and certainly a narcissistic clown with authoritarian tendencies, but if words have a meaning, he isn't a dictator.

Chavez has been elected fairly. After all, isn't gas $0.50 per gallon? I understand your point, and I agree, dictator is not the right word. But in no way can one doubt the fact that Chavez is on a level similar to Putin when it comes to his autocratic tendencies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1) When did I even interact with MJ?

2) I obviously wasn't talking about an armed conflict (that remains a possibility, but probably not the most likely).

3) CHAVEZ. IS. NOT. A. DICTATOR. For God's sake, how is it possible that this guy makes every single person, right or left, lose any sense of nuance to the point of being completely oblivious of basic facts?!? Being a bad person and a bad leader doesn't make you a dictator.

Forgive me, I mistook you for Franzl. Sorry, did not mean to direct that at you. But why would describe a power struggle taking place behind closed doors as a "apocalyptic civil war." Furthermore, Chavez has banned opposition television for God’s sake! George Bush is what you described as a "bad leader." Chavez is a full blown dictator.

Infringements to free press occur in democratic and semi-democratic States as well. They can take different proportions, but if you think that in western countries the political power never tries to influence the media that's pretty naive honestly. By your standards, there are a few new leaders who would qualify as dictators (Silvio Berlusconi, who was the private owner of half TV networks and controlled the other half through the state apparatus, is the most obvious example).

On the other hand, there is little doubt that Chavez was the choice of the Venezuelan people in his different elections. There were a few allegations of fraud and certainly a lot of unfair electoral practices, but elections were generally deemed free by external observers and the opposition has been able to fully contest them.

Yeah, Chavez is a pretty awful leader, and certainly a narcissistic clown with authoritarian tendencies, but if words have a meaning, he isn't a dictator.

Chavez has been elected fairly. After all, isn't gas $0.50 per gallon? I understand your point, and I agree, dictator is not the right word. But in no way can one doubt the fact that Chavez is on a level similar to Putin when it comes to his autocratic tendencies.

That's still not a fair parallel. Putin effectively bans any credible opposition from even participating to votes, gives the few opponents who run literally zero media space, and massively rigs elections. While it's fairly possible that he would have won a fair vote, there's no way of knowing it for sure. For Chavez, despite occasional infringement, it's pretty hard to question he did.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Chavez would have liked to have been the Putin of Venezuela, but despite his best efforts, he didn't quite reach that level of autocracy.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The Concertación, a coallition where Socialist Party is a major force, governed Chile from 1990 to 2010 and the current centre-right administration doesn't seem to do very well.

[Platypus]

The Concertación, a coallition where Socialist Party is a major force, governed Chile from 1990 to 2010 and the current centre-right administration doesn't seem to do very well.

Indeed, Chile is much more than Pinochet.

There is one stat missing from that image though - income disparity. I would suggest that pre-Chavez, post-Pinochet, it would have been worse in Venezuela, but now, I suspect Chile may be worse.

[Nhoj]

The Concertación, a coallition where Socialist Party is a major force, governed Chile from 1990 to 2010 and the current centre-right administration doesn't seem to do very well.

They actually have good economic growth going, the problem i think is more its poor handling of student protests and what not.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Chavez is no Hitler, and I cannot say I wish him death, but I think his removal from office, whether it be by death or him simply not being able to take power come January 10th for health reasons, is a good thing.

You mean the apocalyptic civil war that will begin among his "allies" to succeed him will be a good thing?

Civil war?  Is there anyone ally of Chavez that would take charge beside Maduro? Cabello could end up leading for 30 days until a new election, but he's in the opposition.

[Antonio the Sixth]

At the time I made this post, I didn't know Chavez had officially designed Maduro as his successor. Good thing he did, that will probably make matters much easier.

[Velasco]

The Concertación, a coallition where Socialist Party is a major force, governed Chile from 1990 to 2010 and the current centre-right administration doesn't seem to do very well.

Indeed, Chile is much more than Pinochet.

There is one stat missing from that image though - income disparity. I would suggest that pre-Chavez, post-Pinochet, it would have been worse in Venezuela, but now, I suspect Chile may be worse.

The Gini coefficient measures the income disparity. Chile has a coefficient of 0.503, the highest among the OECD countries. South Africa has the world's highest with 0.7. According to the map below, Venezuela has a coefficient between 0.45 and 0.49, like USA and China.



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

I could post photos of high income areas in Venezuela or photos of Chilean poor districts, but I don't like demagogery. In my opinion the policies followed by Chavez have a strong component of what in Spanish is called asistencialismo, a definition used to describe politics of subsidies to the low classes like those developed in Argentina under Perón, for example. This explains the popularity of Chávez among the popular classes, of course. I have some doubts about the success of the 'bolivarians' in reducing the structural poverty and inequality.