11-17-07 - 2

It's really a tragedy that Hugo Chavez is such a nutter. Not only is he bad for Venezuela, he's bad for populism across the world. Countries will see the havoc he's causing and choose to not elect populist leaders and instead stick to the IMF/WTO/US slavery model. To a lesser extent Evo Morales also appears to be a bit of an extremist nutter. I think it's a great and long-needed more for the masses of poor in central and south america to reclaim control of their countries. The wealth inequality all across the Americas is disgusting, and just about every country is plagued by these semi-state-endorsed private monopolies. The IMF/WTO/US model does absolutely nothing to help these people because it they work with the "capitalist" system that's already in place which is completely corrupt and provides no opportunities for the poor.

Unfortunately, the dictatorship of Chavez will be held up as an example of failed populism (it's not) which will help the causes of all those in the US who are against real change in the Americas. Just as an example, he's being used as an argument that "nationalizing oil is bad". That's totally retarded, nationalized oil profits make perfect sense, and just about every single country in the world with oil does it (the US is one of the very few exceptions - our government gets relatively $0 from oil under our soil, and in fact the very small amounts that we take from oil companies often go unpaid as found by the GAO). Many companies have nationalized oil companies and run them just fine; others have private oil companies but take some large chunk of their profits which also works fine.

No comments:

old rants