In a month I will have more time to post and make it a bit more regular.
Don't rush. Take a year or ten.
Let's give credit where credit is due: Tosh has been right all along:
http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/
...a_1587704.shtml
The USA advocates international law and bans on classes of weapons for other countries. It holds itself above any international law and even above it's own national laws. The US will use rubber bullets. lead bullets, eardrum destroyers and any other imaginable means to curb people who ask too many questions.
Oh and look how Glenn Beck, a real nutjob, was able to run a talented and capable man out of Obama's White House:
Would you still sign the 9/11 Truth petition?
We ask signatories of the statement that helped drive Van Jones from
office if they stand by it. Updated
By Vincent Rossmeier
Sep. 11, 2009 |
Thanks in large part to his association with the 9/11 Truth movement,
Van Jones is no longer a member of the Obama White House. Jones
resigned last week amid a swirl of controversy -- prodded on largely
by Fox News' Glenn Beck -- that included the former "green jobs"
advisor's signing of a petition put out by the 9/11 Truth movement
urging a further investigation into the World Trade Center attacks.
Most controversially, the petition wondered darkly that "unanswered
questions ... suggest that people within the current administration
may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a
pretext for war," before drifting into a list of wild and dubious
speculation. (You can read the petition right here.)
Initially, Jones said that he hadn't fully reviewed the statement
before he signed. But that didn't stop the onslaught of bad publicity
that ultimately led to his exit.
The statement was released in October 2004 and has been signed by
nearly 200 people, including many relatives of those who lost someone
in the attacks. It called for an investigation into 9/11 but also
directly questioned the government's conclusions about the plane
crashes.
In the wake of Jones' departure, Politico's Ben Smith contacted two
other signatories of the statement, Rabbi Michael Lerner and historian
Howard Zinn. Smith found that both men felt they had signed a petition
of more limited scope than the one that appears at the 9/11 Truth Web
site, one that asked only for an investigation into the attacks and
not one questioning President Bush's prior knowledge of 9/11.
Salon contacted nearly 30 of the petition's signatories to see if they
felt, as did Lerner, Zinn and Jones, that the document didn't reflect
their views on 9/11. We asked a simple question: If you had to do it
all over again, would you still sign the statement?
Salon has not heard back from two of the statement's most famous
signatories: actor Ed Asner and comedian Janeane Garofalo. (Updated:
We have received and added Asner's response to the list below.) But
many did respond and most -- though not all -- expressed their
full-fledged support for the petition. Their responses are below:
Ed Asner (through his company, Quince Productions) : Mr. Asner would
sign the petition again without the slightest hesitation.
Gray
HAHA!
Can't wait to see Chavez adopt this.
Make the rich brats from Caracas go deaf
Then we'll see how funny Kepler thinks it is.
HAHA!
Can't wait to see Chavez adopt this.
Make the rich brats from Caracas go deaf
Then we'll see how funny Kepler thinks it is.
And yet another brilliant epiphany by another of the chavismo's brainless puppets. This one must be Chronically Douchebag's lost twin.
Yo retard, these are 'the rich brats' who will go deaf if your god decides to adopt it, mostly people protesting about their right to work and public services:
"Según los registros levantados, el año 2008 cerró con 1602 manifestaciones públicas, siendo las demandas más comunes las relacionadas con el derecho laboral, así como las que tienen que ver con calidad de vida, como servicios básicos, agua, vialidad y seguridad.
Ahora bien, durante el segundo cuatrimestre de 2009, que incluye de enero a Agosto, se observa una totalidad de 2079 manifestaciones públicas. Esto representa cerca del doble de las manifestaciones totales de 2008 y este es el principal dato que salta a la vista hasta la fecha de corte.
Asimismo, en estos ocho meses se registró un total de 130 manifestaciones reprimidas en las que resultaron 461 personas lesionadas y 440 detenidas."
Yes, Yippy, I'm certain that someone, somewhere keeps such an "accurate record" of demostrations.
Why don't you just fuck off and go and spread your lies elsewhere. Cunt!
Let's give credit where credit is due: Tosh has been right all along:
Funny Impartial. Hey wasn't Venezuela supposed to be broke by now? Wasn't this the end-all for Chavez? I remember you saying over and over again last year how Venezuela is "doomed".
Yep, you were right all along genius.
And yet another brilliant epiphany by another of the chavismo's brainless puppets. This one must be Chronically Douchebag's lost twin.
Dude, I know you're really mad because you can't refute any of my arguments, but you don't have to make it so obvious.
Have you read any reports yet Clueless, or will you just keep blowing hot air out of your mouth?
Let me know when you take time to educate yourself on the issues. I'd be glad to discuss by then.
Prove those reports are lies, Ano.
Your beloved government, on the other hand, has been caught red handed while pathetically liying to 'el pueblo soberano', sadly with your own sacred leader's help. As I irrefutably proved on the previous comment thread.
BTW, Ano, you have just proven you are as ignorant on Venezuela as Chronically Ignorant.
There are NGOs that keep accurate records on demonstrations indeed.
Again, you guys need to stop being so lazy.
Try educate yourself.
And Ano, please, think first, then write.
There are NGOs that keep accurate records of demonstrations indeed.
Keep proving your complete ignorance on the topics at hand guys, you are doing a great service to 'La Revolución'.
woopsie,
double post.
pick the one you like better.
And Flanker, yes, I agree with you. Using those equipments against demonstrators is barbaric and they should be banned.
The aggression levels displayed by the police against demonstrators in both Pittsburgh and Honduras was brutal.
"Hey wasn't Venezuela supposed to be broke by now?"
Actually my prediction was that they would run into big trouble in 2010 - at the worst possible time right before the AN elections.
I think things have happened more or less as I thought with two minor differences. I thought that this year they would spend money to prop up the economy so that their reserves would fall but growth would be fairly flat, about zero.
Instead they have conserved cash, so the reserves have held up all year and are now slightly over $33 billion but they did this by not spending as much as I thought they would so the economy has already gone into a recession with negative growth and a big falloff in things like manufacturing, commerce and construction.
The other difference is that oil prices have rebounded to some extent and this has helped them. All the spending by the US and Europe and the Chinese plus some probably speculative investments (look how the US stock market has rebounded too) have made oil prices about double which has obviously helped Venezuela some.
Problem is, I don't think the U.S. is out of the woods, I think it will likely go back into a recession or not be growing much at all by next spring, and consequently oil is much more likely to go down than up and Venezuela is still very much in trouble.
Worse still, Venezuela has done nothing to fix their serious imbalances and in fact now will be taking on up to $5 billion in foriegn debt just to defend an insane exchange rate. Given that I can't see them making major adjustments in a big election year it looks like they intend to take this on this path until it just pops - basically like 1983.
Perhaps they want to spend it all next year.
Do you have an idea how much debt Venezuela is getting into? I reckon it is no longer possible to analyse Hugo's accounting system, with everything seen as "investment"
In 1983 the murder rate was under 19 p/100000, now it is around 70. In 1983 we were some 15 million people. Now we are nearly twice as many plus 100 000 AK 47 plus some fancy tanks and rocket launchers
Actually my prediction was that they would run into big trouble in 2010 - at the worst possible time right before the AN elections.
Sure OW, keep pushing that prediction back.
They're gonna collapse, one of these years! Maybe 2011 or 2012?? 2015??
Instead they have conserved cash, so the reserves have held up all year and are now slightly over $33 billion but they did this by not spending as much as I thought they would so the economy has already gone into a recession
Uh, no. Reserves have not held up because they have "conserved cash." They don't spend reserves unless they are excess reserves, which is what happened when they took $12 billion out of the reserves and put them in Fonden. The rest has stayed even because of limits on imports.
And, no, they aren't in a recession. A recession is a long period of economic contraction. Last quarter was the first quarter in years that the economy has contracted, and growth might still be positive as a whole for the year. (By definition, not a recession)
All the spending by the US and Europe and the Chinese plus some probably speculative investments (look how the US stock market has rebounded too) have made oil prices about double which has obviously helped Venezuela some.
Hey OW, since when did you become such an expert on the world economy? Seems like not too long ago you were laughing at my prediction that the overproduction in the world economy was leading to the end of a bubble, and made any attempt at export-led industrialization completely useless. Turns out you were totally clueless when it finally happened.
And I notice you didn't bother to respond to the excellent analysis of William Hinton on China that I posted in the last thread. Oh well, I suppose that's just too "old" like that other article I posted about the NIC's, right? Hey, when you can't defeat the argument, its always better to just find some lame excuse to discount it, right?
Oh, and I think OPEC production cuts might have had something to do with oil's recovery.
Given that I can't see them making major adjustments in a big election year it looks like they intend to take this on this path until it just pops
Yep, we're doomed!!!
Prove those reports are lies, Ano.
Dude, sorry to break it to you, but there is no way to prove the non-existence of protests that some NGO claims existed. The burden of proof lies on he who is making the claim. If you can't prove that it is correct, then the claim is baseless.
Have you read any reports yet Clueless, or will you just keep blowing hot air out of your mouth?
I don't even know what reports you are talking about. Your arguments don't even make any sense.
Try to put together a coherent argument about something, anything, and then I'll respond. Until then, you are a waste of space.
"Sure OW, keep pushing that prediction back."
You know, you can change you name but I am sure you can remember the discussions and they are all still there to read. But as always, you are interested in polemics, not honest debate or discussion.
"Uh, no. Reserves have not held up because they have "conserved cash." They don't spend reserves unless they are excess reserves, which is what happened when they took $12 billion out of the reserves and put them in Fonden. The rest has stayed even because of limits on imports."
Well, it appears you are living up to your new name. When exporters bring dollars to the country and change them for bolivares those dollars go into the reserves. When Cadivi takes dollars to sell to people who want them for imports that comes out of the BCV reserves. So the reserves go up and down every week depending on which is greater - the dollars coming in from exports or the dollars going out for imports and expenses. If you weren't clueless you would know this.
Now, exports dropped dramatically so other things being the same the reserves would have dropped dramatically. But the government cut back significantly on money given for imports and money given to travelers, etc. So they conserved cash.
"And, no, they aren't in a recession. A recession is a long period of economic contraction. Last quarter was the first quarter in years that the economy has contracted, and growth might still be positive as a whole for the year. (By definition, not a recession)"
Again, your cluelessness shows through. There isn't even an exact definition of a recession. Even in the U.S., where it is informally defined as two quarters of negative growth, they have a panel of economists that decides it. Venezuela has no such panel to my knowledge which allows people like yourself to say what you want.
But they now have a full year of manufacturing declining, unemployment has been going up as have the number of people "employed" in the informal sector has increased, and when the third quarter GDP numbers come out they will almost certainly have had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Call it what you want, but the economy is shrinking, peoples purchasing power is going down, and fewer people have real jobs. Not exactly stellar economic management.
"Seems like not too long ago you were laughing at my prediction that the overproduction in the world economy was leading to the end of a bubble, and made any attempt at export-led industrialization completely useless. Turns out you were totally clueless when it finally happened."
Too funny. The two main countries that are today using the export growth model, China and Vietnam, have grown right throughout this whole world wide recession and have way out performed Venezuela. The more you write, the more clueless you look.
"Yep, we're doomed!!!"
Who is we? People in Colorado or people in Venezuela?
I don't think Venezuela will collapse and I don't think Venezuelans will be starving in the streets. But given that it is a third world country it doesn't have to collapse for life to be pretty shitty for most of its population - it just has to stay the same. And that is what it looks almost certain to do as the oil boom ends and they have no development plan in place to take the country forward without ever increasing oil prices.
According to this Vietnam's economy is doing really shitty this year - only growing 4.7%
http://www.nhandan.com.vn/
englis...omestic_adb.htm
Funny thing is Venezuela's economy only grew 4.8% LAST year which was a year of all time record oil prices.
Worse still, Vietnam's industrial production is only up by a measly 6.5%
http://news.xinhuanet.com/
englis...nt_12125762.htm
Hell, Venezuela had 8.5% manufacturing growth... oh shit that was negative right?
And lets not even look up China's numbers, that would probably be even more depressing for Venezuela.
Dude, sorry to break it to you, but there is no way to prove the non-existence of protests that some NGO claims existed. The burden of proof lies on he who is making the claim. If you can't prove that it is correct, then the claim is baseless.
Are you serious. "Dude" your psychotic rants are making less sense as the time goes by. There are many sources to check for the existence of protests. Even a tiny pea brain like yours could figure it out if you tried. Again, man, stop with the intellectual laziness.
And NGOs argument and prove their claims by the reports you don't know because you consistently refuse to read them. In other words, you reject their claims because they are false and at the same time avoid checking the documents where they explain the arguments and proves the use to make the claims. You are either retarded or a very lazy hack.
I don't even know what reports you are talking about. Your arguments don't even make any sense.
So if you don't even know what I'm talking about, why do you repond to a comment that's directed to the other Anus-err I mean Ano?
Try to put together a coherent argument about something, anything, and then I'll respond. Until then, you are a waste of space.
Translation from insane language to english:
"Please stop using information I can't refute because I can't find any coherent argument to keep justifying everything my cult does"
So the reserves go up and down every week depending on which is greater - the dollars coming in from exports or the dollars going out for imports and expenses. If you weren't clueless you would know this.
I do know this. That's why I said they have stayed even due to import quotas.... e.g. the government controls how much money goes to imports.
Try to grow a brain man.
But the government cut back significantly on money given for imports and money given to travelers, etc. So they conserved cash.
That's what I said. Import quotas. Can you read? But this isn't "conserving cash" the way you mean. Most government spending has not been drastically reduced. Social spending was virtually untouched.
Again, your cluelessness shows through. There isn't even an exact definition of a recession.
Usually it is defined as AT LEAST two consecutive quarters of economic contraction.
Either way, literally NO ONE claims that a country is in recession just because they have a single quarter of contraction. Seriously OW, grow a brain.
Call it what you want, but the economy is shrinking, peoples purchasing power is going down, and fewer people have real jobs. Not exactly stellar economic management.
Dude, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but a little thing called a global economic crisis has kinda been happening this year, and it has kinda affected every economy on the whole planet. Most have fared much worse than Venezuela.
Too funny. The two main countries that are today using the export growth model, China and Vietnam, have grown right throughout this whole world wide recession and have way out performed Venezuela. The more you write, the more clueless you look.
Once again, OW shows that he doesn't understand the difference between economic growth and economic development.
Oh well, I've tried to explain it to him several times. I think the problem is that he needs to GROW A BRAIN before he'll understand.
Can you respond to William Hinton's analysis? I believe he's a slightly more respected expert on China than you are. I notice you keep avoiding that.
Can you respond to my arguments about why China's growth cannot be duplicated by a smaller/less powerful country?
Can you admit that I was right (and you were wrong) regarding the worldwide glut in markets that led to the crisis? You can't seem to respond to that either.
But given that it is a third world country it doesn't have to collapse for life to be pretty shitty for most of its population - it just has to stay the same. And that is what it looks almost certain to do as the oil boom ends and they have no development plan in place to take the country forward without ever increasing oil prices.
No development plan? Hahahaha! Dude, you didn't even understand why land reform and regional integration were essential to development, and you're telling the Venezuelan government that they don't
Are you serious. "Dude" your psychotic rants are making less sense as the time goes by. There are many sources to check for the existence of protests.
Then post them. Back up your claim. Don't be intellectually lazy.
Wow, more absolutely irrefutable reasoning from OW, I don't know if I can handle the continuing manifestations of this brilliant, unassailable logic. However, I shall do a little basic google searching and see if the facts actually agree with your assertions.
"There isn't even an exact definition of a recession. Even in the U.S., where it is informally defined as two quarters of negative growth, they have a panel of economists that decides it."
Really...
Let's see what Investopedia.com has to say about it:
"A significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting longer than a few months. It is visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade. The technical indicator of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth as measured by a country's GDP."
Hmm...but they must be wrong since OW says there is not an "exact definition of a recession."
Let's look at http://recession.org/definition:
"professionals and experts around the world believe that a true economic recession can only be confirmed if GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth is negative for a period of two or more consecutive quarters."
Strange you seem to be WRONG ABOUT THIS, since there is an exact definition of a recession and this is widely accepted by economists aroung the world. However, who cares that there is an exact definition, as long as you can claim, based on the fact that Venezuela has experienced "declining manufacturing and rising unemployment" that it is in a recession. Why leave it at that? Why not say that if Venezuela grows at a slower rate than China in any quarter in any year it is in a depression? After all, there is no "exact definition" of a depression. I wholeheartedly and fully support the ability of people like yourself to "say what they want" regardless of the actual facts.
Second, you seem to believe that only two countries now adhere to the export lead model of growth; "The two main countries that are today using the export growth model, China and Vietnam." Really, so despite your statements to the contrary the only two countries that have followed this model are China and Vietnam. I thought that you claimed that quite a few others had as well, and this was the basis of your assertion that Venezuela should pursue this development model as well. I remember a particular country named South Korea that was previously discussed on this blog at length and was promoted as being a model of export lead growth. I wonder how that economy is doing...
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/...aspx?
Symbol=KRW
-In 2009 the economy shrank by an average of 3.20 percent (in the first three quarters of the year). Hmm.... since this is an export lead economy and all such economies have a guarantee of success according to you, their previous GDP growth must have been at least 8-10% a year.
Wrong: 2008 GDP 2.38 2007 GDP 5.10 2006 GDP 5.20. Hmmm...someo
Funny thing is Venezuela's economy only grew 4.8% LAST year which was a year of all time record oil prices.
Worse still, Vietnam's industrial production is only up by a measly 6.5%
Funny thing OW, its almost as if you didn't have a clue of these countries histories, and why their economies were able to evolve from one of colonial dependency to rapid industrial growth.
When was the Vietnamese revolution OW? How long ago was that? What economic sectors did they prioritize first? What is known as the "backbone of Vietnam's development strategy"??? Can you say AGRICULTURE?
You see, if you really want to understand anything about economic development, you have to stop focusing simply on fucking GDP growth numbers!!!! There is a lot more that goes into it than that. (as would seem obvious to anyone with even the slightest amount of common sense.)
Expecting Venezuela, a country that just a few years ago was able to gain control of the national economy, and is still battling a private sector largely controlled by the opposition, to compare to nations like China and Vietnam who already passed through communist revolutions, land reform, agricultural-based development strategies, etc. etc., is just simply ignorant. Plain and simple OW. IGNORANT.
Regardless, with Vietnam and China's recent need to join the WTO, you will see their prospects for development take a huge hit. Neither of them are ready to open their economies to world competition. But that's exactly what they are going to have to do. Say hello to neocolonialism my friend. That's what happens when your development strategy becomes dependent on exports to the major markets.
I know, I know... you already knew all that....
-In 2009 the economy shrank by an average of 3.20 percent (in the first three quarters of the year).
See OW, now THAT can be considered a recession. And if it isn't your poster child South Korea!!!!
Seriously man, it is time to question your beloved export strategy. It is bogus, exactly as William Hinton explained.
South Korea poses a perfect example of why it is bogus. It worked for a time (supported massively by the US), but, as I said above, when your development model depends on exporting to the market of major power, you are vulnerable. Eventually, when economic times change, that dependency comes back to bite you in the ass. South Korea is now being forced to open their economy to all kinds of imports. In other words, they are becoming colonized again. Just as China and Vietnam will see when they are forced by the WTO to do the same thing.
Taiwan GDP numbers:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiw.../Taiwan-
GDP.htm
"Taiwan -- The Cabinet-level Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) yesterday forecast Taiwan's gross domestic product (GDP) would shrink by 2.97 percent in 2009. The pessimistic prediction came after the domestic economy contracted by an estimated 8.36 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008, the largest-ever quarterly drop in history."
"DGBAS forecasts the island's GDP will continue contracting in the first three quarters of this year, shrinking 6.51 percent in the first quarter, 6.85 percent in the second quarter, and 2.67 percent in the third quarter." This sounds like a RECESSION to me.
Some might say that the cause of the current problems in these nations is "that the overproduction in the world economy was leading to the end of a bubble, and made any attempt at export-led industrialization completely useless". You however, choose to avoid this argument by attempting to gloss over this and focusing on Vietnam and China.
However, maybe comparing Venezuela directly with those "export lead growth" economies you idolize is unfair, let's compare its growth to that of the largest and most advanced industrialized nation over the last few years:
US GDP growth: 2009 1st Quarter -6.4 2nd Quarter -1.0 2008 1st Quarter -0.7 2nd Quarter 1.5 3rd Quarter -2.7 4th Quarter -5.4.
But, Venezuela could not possibly have beaten or exceeded these growth numbers could it...
Venezuela GDP
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/...aspx?
Symbol=VEB
2009 Average: 0.95 2008 Average 4.85 2007 Average 8.19 2006 Average 9.80.
Wow, things must be very, very bad, approaching catastrophe in fact, when the Venezuelan economic growth rate only EXCEEDS THAT OF THE UNITED STATES AND SOUTH KOREA. Those with your focus on GDP as a measure of economic growth might logically assume that this indicates that the Venezuelan economy is being managed more ably than those previous darlings of your obsession with the "export lead growth" model, Taiwan and South Korea. But, never mind this, economic collapse is coming to Venezuela in the next quarter, or the quarter after that, or in 2020, or in..Wait, Venezuela is already in a recession according to OW's "Recession Indicator"! According to this, a recession is apparently to be measured by comparison to the economic growth rate of Vietnam. If the growth rate is the same as Vietnam's than great, keep up the good work. If the growth rate is less than Vietnam's, no matter by how much, IT'S A RECESSION.
However, since you focus on Vietnam it may be useful to see what actual experts have to say about why its current growth rate has occurred.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/
ne...id=aV7g65euvUgs
"Measures put in place to counter the slowdown included a fiscal stimulus package valued at 8.6 percent of GDP that featured tax exemptions, reductions and deferments for businesses, increased bond sales, and an interest-rate subsidy program... The interest-rate subsidy scheme as well as a government infrastructure program have been the "key drivers" behind Vietnam’s economic growth this year, wrote Robert Prior- Wandesforde, a Singapore-based economist at HSBC Holdings Plc." Funny, seems that Vietnam's current GDP growth rate is not primarily accounted for by "export lead growth" but by good ole government programs.
You also seem to be concerned about the impact that a recent $5 billion dollar increase in Venezeula's foreign debt will have on the future of the economy.
"Venezuela has done nothing to fix their serious imbalances and in fact now will be taking on up to $5 billion in foriegn debt just to defend an insane exchange rate." Well, sounds like a serious crisis in the making, I wonder how long it will be before the Venezuelan state has to delare bankruptcy at this rate. Just by way of comparison, I wonder what the foreign debt increase of another nation has been over the last several years...
Let's see what the International Monetary Fund has to say about this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/
2...s_to_35_of.html
"On April 21, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected (see the World Economic Outlook, pp. 36-37) that the US foreign debt will increase from about 4.5% of world GDP in 2007 to about 9% in 2009. Given that the US foreign debt was 17.7% of US GDP at the end of 2007, this means that ou
our foreign debt will be about 35% of US GDP by the end of this year." In other words, US foreign debt DOUBLED IN TWO YEARS. Compared to this, the increase in the foreign debt of Venezuela seems to be so small and trivial as to be barely worthy of serious mention, and much less an indicator of coming serious economic problems.
Chris,
You who knows it all: can you tell me how is it going with the cadastre? I woud LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE to know who owns what in Barinas.
"The empirical data which exists on the range of collective actions shows that during the first ten years of Hugo Chavez's presidency there was an average of 1,314 street protests per year, ranging from road blockades to congregations of people to protest marches, more than 3 per day [2]. This does not take into account both legal and illegal strikes which also disrupt daily life. Many of these protest methods, such as the road blockade, although they have long been utilized by Venezuelans to express discontent, are nonetheless illegal. The protesters are frequently supporters of President Chavez yet the high level of popular mobilization can confound governmental attempts to provide orderly and institutional solutions to volatile political problems. "
[2] Antonio Ponce, Marco. Chapter: "Derecho a la manifestación pacífica" in: Situacíon de los Derechos Humanos en Venezuela. Informe Annual Octubre 2007/Septiembre 2008. Programa Venezuelano de Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos (Provea). Caracas, Venezuela. 2008.
(http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4763)
"The empirical data which exists on the range of collective actions shows that during the first ten years of Hugo Chavez's presidency there was an average of 1,314 street protests per year, ranging from road blockades to congregations of people to protest marches, more than 3 per day
JSB, much of this data is referring to protests related to the frequent disruptions of service, precarious housing situations, floods, transport issues, etc. etc.
This has been a part of Venezuelan daily life for years, and most of these kinds of protests are not of a political nature. (The author notes that they are frequently Chavez supporters)
Do you think these kinds of protests have increased since the 1990's? I seriously doubt it, but it would be interesting to see the statistics.
As for protests of a political nature, I'm sure those have increased drastically. But, again, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. This is to be expected when a country is undergoing an intense political conflict like Venezuela.
I thought this might interest you OW:
La dependencia de Asia en las exportaciones ha contribuido a un crecimiento global de los desequilibrios y ha hecho que la región sea vulnerable a los movimientos de la demanda global. Pero un regreso a un crecimiento y a patrones de demanda antiguos es poco posible "dados los ajustes en Estados Unidos y Europa", consideró el FMI. Por esta razón, muchas economías asiáticas deben enfocarse en la demanda interna para sostener su crecimiento.
http://www.google.com/
hostednews...ndLldlzVHAxJPxA
Seems like that's exactly what I've been saying for a long time. Hmmmm....
Here's more from the IMF report:
Much of Asia relies for its growth engine on high-and medium- technology manufacturing exports—in particular, motor vehicles, electronic goods, and capital machinery. The demand for advanced manufacturing has collapsed—Japanese auto exports, for example, have fallen by nearly 70 percent between September 2008 and March 2009. At the same time, Asia’s financial ties with the rest of the world have deepened over the past decade, exposing the region to the forces of global deleveraging.
...
Looking ahead, Asia’s growth path will continue to run parallel to the global economy. For the rest of 2009, the external shock is expected to continue to spill over into private investment and consumption, causing many countries to register negative growth rates. Then, as the global economy revives in 2010, so too will Asia. But the recovery is likely to be tepid—and not only because the global economy will remain weak. Experience shows that investment tends to recover slowly from downturns, especially those that involve financial stress, the report says.
Over the longer horizon, Asian economies are at risk of a structural decline in demand from advanced economies. Households in advanced economies have started repairing their over-leveraged balance sheets, as the era of easy credit to finance purchases of consumer durables could well be over. In that case, the growth rate of Asian manufacturing and exports could be structurally lower for many years, and Asia’s export-led growth strategy may no longer pay the same dividends as in the past.
Asia may need to rebalance growth away from exports and toward domestic demand in order to return to pre-crisis growth rates.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs.../
car050509a.htm
And keep in mind, this is coming from the IMF, a long-time champion of the export-led model. For them to be advising countries to turn towards domestic demand and away from export dependency means that even the champions of the export model are giving up on it.
"Strange you seem to be WRONG ABOUT THIS, since there is an exact definition of a recession and this is widely accepted by economists aroung the world."
Stop being so stupid. There is not one precise definition. In the US there is a committe that meets and decides on various data when a recession began. And they go back and date it to when the economy first started shrinking in their view - not to when it already had two quarters of shrinkage. Here is their press release from when they declared the U.S. in a recession:
http://www.nber.org/cycles/dec2008.html
And in the FAQ at the bottom it clearly states:
Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER’s recession dating procedure?
A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. As an example, the last recession, in 2001, did not include two consecutive quarters of decline. As of the date of the committee’s meeting, the economy had not yet experienced two consecutive quarters of decline.
Q: Why doesn’t the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: The committee’s procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but use a range of indicators. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, “a significant decline in activity.” Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in 2007 and 2008.
Hopefully you are capable of reading the rest on your own.
"That's what I said. Import quotas. Can you read? But this isn't "conserving cash" the way you mean. Most government spending has not been drastically reduced. Social spending was virtually untouched. "
That is exactly the way I meant conserving cash. If they hadn't done that, if they had drawn down reserves to keep more cheap imports coming in the reserves would have dropped. They decided not to do that.
Further, government spending DID decline. They cut the central budget and local budgets as well. Further, many FONDEN projects seem to be on ice.
"Usually it is defined as AT LEAST two consecutive quarters of economic contraction.
Either way, literally NO ONE claims that a country is in recession just because they have a single quarter of contraction. Seriously OW, grow a brain."
See up above. That isn't even the definition used in the US, even though the media often uses it. As the link pointed out pointed out, if you use the 2 quarter definition then the US didn't have a recession in 2001 because it didn't contract for two quarters. You might have been in elementary school at the time but trust me, there was a recession.
And as for Venezuela soon enough the Q3 data will come out. You think it is going to show positive growth??
"Dude, I'm not sure if you've noticed, but a little thing called a global economic crisis has kinda been happening this year, and it has kinda affected every economy on the whole planet. Most have fared much worse than Venezuela."
Countries with actual development plans are still growing.
"Once again, OW shows that he doesn't understand the difference between economic growth and economic development."
Seriously? You are going to claim that China, which has universities turning out hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists each year and which now makes automobiles, locamotives, power generating equipment, launches sattelites into space and will soon be building commercial airliners isn't developing????? But Venezuela is????
Your assertions have long since become too farcical to respond to.
"Can you respond to my arguments about why China's growth cannot be duplicated by a smaller/less powerful country?"
So how come Vietnam is replicating it???
"Can you respond to William Hinton's analysis? I believe he's a slightly more respected expert on China than you are. I notice you keep avoiding that."
Oh boy, and there are many "respected experts" who would claim that capitalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that just by protecting property rights you will automatically get growth.
Try using your brain and actually make an arguement yourself rather than just tossing out the name of some "expert" you want to latch on to.
"No development plan? Hahahaha! Dude, you didn't even understand why land reform and regional integration were essential to development, and you're telling the Venezuelan government that they don't"
If they had a plan key sectors of their economy would be growing rather than shrinking. For example, if they were following a ISI strategy their manufacturing sector should be growing even if they were in an overall recession because there would still be lots of imports that could be getting replaced by new industries coming on line. But that isn't happening. Why? Because there aren't new industries being built in any significant numbers because they have no plan and very little investment and what very little they do do is easily wiped out by their other insane anti-manufacturing policies.
I've been screaming for three or four years that manufacturing was being stymied by their policies and for the past year, even before the recession impacted Venezuela, the numbers showed that.
Care to admit I was right?
Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
BTW, there are two people here (or one with two names?) making hay of the fact that the US is in a bad recession and that places like Tawain and South Korea are two.
To compare the US and Venezuela is insane. First, because it is pretty clear that the US's economic policies are bad and self defeating and therefore are not anything any country that wants to develop should emulate. In the WSJ yesterday they gave investment rates by region: the only place worse than Latin America was the United State. Guess what region had the highest investment rates - yes, Asia.
Further, the U.S. is a developed country so even if it has low growth rates it doesn't matter that much as its citizens already have a high standard of living. The U.S. doesn't need to grow at 8 or 10% - 2 or 3% is fine for it.
Countries like China and Venezuela are poor and need to grow fast if they are to have any chance of giving their citizens a better standard of living any time soon. Further, they have very youthful populations which requires high growth just to create jobs for all the new people coming into the workforce each year. That is why many commentators say growth under 5% is very bad and effectively a recession for China.
Lets see when the next time is that Venezuela gets growth OVER 5%.
Further, South Korea and Tawain are no longer using the export model for development. They aren't using any model for development. Apparently you hadn't noticed but they are already devoloped!!!!! That is what happens when you have 10% growth every year for a few decades - something Venezuelans can only dream about.
When you develop a number of things change in an economy that make it next to impossible to have growth rates over 5 or 6%. Further, once a country has developed they generally start to consume more and invest less so their investment rate drops and growth moderates.
But at that point it isn't a big deal - people in South Korea and Tawain already live well, far better than people in places like Venezuela, and so they aren't in desperate need for growth.
Venezuela is.
Capiche??
Further, government spending DID decline.
I didn't say it didn't. Reread my statment.
Countries with actual development plans are still growing.
This statement is extremely naive OW. You've pointed to two countries that are growing, and you are saying that if Venezuela doesn't grow as much as them then they are a total failure.
But I see you cannot address any of my points about these countries being in a DRASTICALLY different point in their economic history than Venezuela.
I guess a country's economic situation doesnt' matter to you. You just compare GDP across the board, and if Venezuela doesn't come out the best, then that means they are a failed model. Great logic OW.
Seriously? You are going to claim that China, which has universities turning out hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists each year and which now makes automobiles, locamotives, power generating equipment, launches sattelites into space and will soon be building commercial airliners isn't developing?????
China is a special case, because they have such a massive domestic market to keep their economy moving. But their development is certainly in question if they depend too much on export-led industrialization. Even the IMF is now admitting this, and is recommending that they turn more towards internal demand.
But Venezuela is????
Yes, but Venezuela is not anywhere close to the stage of China or Vietnam. China and Vietnam went through revoulutions several decades ago, of which agriculture was a major component. Venezuela is just now in the stage of ag reform.
Comparing Venezuela to China is only someone who is totally clueless about economic development would do. They have drastically different economic histories, and current situations.
Oh boy, and there are many "respected experts" who would claim that capitalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that just by protecting property rights you will automatically get growth.
In other words, you can't respond to what Hinton said. Why not just admit it, instead of trying to change the topic?
If they had a plan key sectors of their economy would be growing rather than shrinking.
Agriculture.
I've been screaming for three or four years that manufacturing was being stymied by their policies and for the past year, even before the recession impacted Venezuela, the numbers showed that.
Care to admit I was right?
You weren't right. Manufacturing has declined, but not for the reasons you cite.
I have explained this before.
You have also been screaming for 3 or 4 years about the need to use the export model. That would have been a brilliant idea right now, wouldn't it? Now even the IMF is admitting that it isn't a good idea.
Care to admit you were wrong?
There is a brilliant article on growth in developed and underdeveloped countries in Spiegel. When I have time I will try to write on that in my Spanish blog.
Try using your brain and actually make an arguement yourself rather than just tossing out the name of some "expert" you want to latch on to.
This is funny OW. I actually did make the exact same argument as Hinton long before I ever read him. I just cited him now because I thought he did a good job of making the argument.
The real question here is if YOU can actually use your brain and respond intelligently, or if you'll continue to avoid addressing my arguments.
For example, if they were following a ISI strategy their manufacturing sector should be growing even if they were in an overall recession because there would still be lots of imports that could be getting replaced by new industries coming on line. But that isn't happening. Why?
This isn't exactly how ISI works, and you don't see explosive growth in manufacturing. It is a very slow process that begins with agricultural reform to build up the domestic market.
The funny part about all this OW, is that you don't understand anything about how Vietnam and China are being less affected by the crisis than other Asian nations. You advocate their "model" yet apparently don't even really understand it.
The reason China and Vietnam are able to weather to storm better than other Asian economies have is because they depend much LESS on exports for growth, and have much greater domestic-led growth.
Read about it here: http://www.allroadsleadtochina.c.../
prc_270907.pdf
Really, you should at least try to understand these models that you advocate, and how their economic history has led them to where they are today. The fact that they can depend on domestic-led growth more than others is because they engaged in ag reform, and built up agriculture as the "backbone" of their development strategy.
In the US there is a committe that meets and decides on various data when a recession began.
We're not talking about the US. We're talking about Venezuela, and the generally accepted view is that it takes more than one quarter to call it a recession. (One example in the US in 2001 hardly means you can start labelling all single-quarter contractions a "recession")
Regardless, if it does turn out that Venezuela is in a recession it will have been inevitable.
Are you trying to say that Venezuela could have avoided a recession if they had followed an export-led model? Hmmmmm.... Let's see what the IMF says, shall we:
In Southeast Asia, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines are going to be hit more severely by the global crisis, owing their higher dependence on advanced manufacturing exports and large spillovers from the external sector to domestic demand, affecting consumers and investor confidence. In Thailand and Malaysia, growth will be negative on average in 2009 and will resume firmly only next year, as the effect of strong fiscal efforts eventually complement the improvement in global conditions. Growth is expected to be flat in 2009 in the Philippines, as waning remittances—an important driver of consumption—will dampen domestic demand. By contrast, growth in Indonesia and Vietnam will remain positive over the next two years, reflecting the relatively lower share of advanced manufacturing in these economies and the higher contribution to growth from domestic demand.
In other words, those economies LESS dependent on exports are those that have endured the crisis better.
Had Venezuela pursued an export-led model they would be even worse off than they are now.
"Stop being so stupid. There is not one precise definition. In the US there is a committe that meets and decides on various data when a recession began. And they go back and date it to when the economy first started shrinking in their view - not to when it already had two quarters of shrinkage. Here is their press release from when they declared the U.S. in a recession:"
Once again you seek to evade the argument. As can be clearly seen from my original post, I was not referring to what economists in the US define as a recession IN THE US, but what is GENERALLY recognized as the technical definition of a recession by economists around the world. The reason I brought this point up was because you originally claimed that Venezuela was in a recession. When it was pointed out that it is in NOT in a recession you claimed there was no precise definition of a recession. I than showed that there is in fact such a precise definition that is generally recognized around the world. You than reverted to the argument about how to define a recession in the US. I was not claiming that a recession in the US is defined in any other way. Rather, I was countering your claim that Venezuela is in a recession by showing that economists around the world do define a recession and based on this definition Venezuela is not in one. Your original attempt to claim that a recession was occurring in Venezuela is still incorrect.
"Hopefully you are capable of reading the rest on your own."
Yes, but your original claim is still incorrect.
"That isn't even the definition used in the US, even though the media often uses it."
Yes, but as I discussed above, I was referring to how economists around the world define a recession, not how the US government defines a recession.
"And as for Venezuela soon enough the Q3 data will come out. You think it is going to show positive growth??"
It may or may not; but this was not the subject of my post. Once again, I was showing that your original claim that Venezuela is in a recession, based on currently available economic data, is incorrect.
"Countries with actual development plans are still growing."
Fascinating statement there. Your claim now seems to be that so long as a country has a development plan and follows an export led growth model than it will have growth, and since your model is China and Vietnam, that it is guaranteed to have very high economic growth. Thus, I assume that any country that is not growing, based on your quoted statement above, does not have a development plan. Hmm...so that means that South Korea and Taiwan, who you hold up as models to be followed in all relevant respects by Venezuela, WHO ARE NO LONGER GROWING, DO NOT HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
Well I wonder how you are going to explain this...
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/...-
126414656.html
"Taiwan cabinet puts forward second national development plan.
Text of by Deborah Kuo, carried report in English by Taiwanese Central News Agency web site
Taipei, 22 December (2004): The Executive Yuan put forward a second national development plan Wednesday [22 December] aimed at doubling Taiwan's gross domestic product (GDP) in 10 years, according to officials from the Council for Economic Planning and Development (CEPD).
The plan is aimed at building Taiwan into "an environmentally friendly 'silicon island' with humanistic characteristics,"
Somehow I doubt that economic development plan called for the worst quarter of economic decline in Taiwanese history, but this occurred anyway despite the plan's existence.
"Seriously? You are going to claim that China, which has universities turning out hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists each year and which now makes automobiles, locamotives, power generating equipment, launches sattelites into space and will soon be building commercial airliners isn't developing????? But Venezuela is????"
I would not make the claim that China is not "developing." However, the very reason it is developing comes from many factors, including the fact that it has had a very long period of time to develop that very economy and undertake policies that allow and facilitate that development. Also, the fact that it is graduating thousands of scientists, engineers, etc has something to do with that development as well. Venezuela has not had time to fully develop that kind of education system in the last 10 years, or that kind of advanced manufacturing infrastructure, and thus is not producing as many graduates in these areas or building advanced products. Second, just because China is "developing" does not mean that every aspect of policy it is using to do so should be slavishly emulated. This development policy has produced significant negative effects, such as rampant pollution and destruction of the natural environment, rising income inequality and others.
"So how come Vietnam is replicating it???"
I assume that by "replicating it" you mean an export led growth development model. However, as I clearly showed in my previous post, the current growth it is experiencing is the product of a government economic stimulus plan. If this plan did not take place, Vietnamese growth would likely have declined, as the quote in my post shows. Thus, this undermines your argument that an export led growth model is absolutely indispensable to ensuring growth, and that countries that pursue this model invariably achieve consistent economic success.
"To compare the US and Venezuela is insane. First, because it is pretty clear that the US's economic policies are bad and self defeating and therefore are not anything any country that wants to develop should emulate."
Really, except for what you describe as the US definition of a recession which you apparently believe Venezuela should adopt.
The point here is very clear, a variety of countries can be compared based on GDP growth rates or on other measures such as manufacturing growth rates. This will inveitably lead to differing results since the basic economic conditions and situations of these countries inveitably differ. Thus, when you claim that Venezuela should emulate a certain country that is growing faster, and than claim that the reason for that growth comes primarily from one area (export led development) you make a gross oversimplification that is not correct. One, Venezuela is in fact better managed than many other nations if you treat economic growth as the primary or only factor that should be considered. (In fact just lookging at GDP can be misleading, but for these purposes I will use it).
For example, your assertion that South Korea and Taiwan are models that should be followed by Venezuela based on their economic growth rates is undermined by the fact that they are not now in fact growing. By contrast, Venezuela grew in the last quarter of last year, in the first quarter of this year, and its one quarter of economic decline has been noticeably less severe than it has been in these other nations. Simply comparing Venezuela to other nations such as China and Vietnam that happen to be growing faster than Venezuela, where economic conditions are dramatically different, and than attributing this growth to one particular factor is obviously misleading. Thus the claim that the reason Venezeuala is not growing at similar rates is because of economic mismanagement, lack of an economic plan or other factors is simplistic and can be countered by showing that other nations are in fact doing significantly worse than Venezuela.
"Further, the U.S. is a developed country so even if it has low growth rates it doesn't matter that much as its citizens already have a high standard of living. The U.S. doesn't need to grow at 8 or 10% - 2 or 3% is fine for it.
Countries like China and Venezuela are poor and need to grow fast if they are to have any chance of giving their citizens a better standard of living any time soon. Further, they have very youthful populations which requires high growth just to create jobs for all the new people coming into the workforce each year. That is why many commentators say growth under 5% is very bad and effectively a recession for China.
Lets see when the next time is that Venezuela gets growth OVER 5%."
Yes, but the US is not just currently experiencing "low growth rates" it is in a recession more severe than any since the Great Depression.
True, the US does not need to grow at 8-10% growth rates, I never claimed that it did. I was merely showing if you arbitrately select several countries that have growth rates that are at variance with another countries, for example China and Vietnam, than you can than claim that a country with growth rates that differ from those countries is doing better or worse than those countries based on those growth rates.
Since you are fond of comparing the economic growth rates of similarly situated countries, and do not believe it is fair to compare countries that are developed and developing, than let us compare several developing countries, and let us select them from Latin America.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/...aspx?
Symbol=CLN
CHILE GDP:
2009 Average: -3.40 2008 Average: 3.20 2007 Average 5,18 2006 Average: 4.30 2005 Average: 5,63 2004 Average: 6.04 2003 Average: 4.22. Hmm...this economy seems to be doing substantially less well than Venezuela, and it is in a RECESSION.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/...aspx?
Symbol=BRL
BRAZIL GDP:
2009 Average: -1.47 2008 Average: 5.10 2007 Average: 5.67 2006 Average: 3.98 2005 Average: 3.17 2004 Average: 5.72 2003 Average: 1.18. Hmm...this economy ALSO seems to be doing MORE POORLY than Venezuela and is also IN A RECESSION.
The point here is that if you compare certain countries with others, you can always make claims about one country doing better than another, or worse than another, if you analyze based on GDP or certain other factors alone. You claim that Venezuela is doing worse than China based on GDP analysis and an assertion that export led growth has alone has caused China to achieve its rate of high growth. You than claim the reason for this must be lack of an economic plan by Venezuela and the fact that it is not pursuing an export lead growth strategy. Than based on this and ignoring other relevant factors, including the variety of economic refomrms and changes that China has undertaken over the past 60 years to achieve of this rate of growth, you claim that Venezuela is failing and its government policy is lacking when it is compared to China because Venezuela is not experiencing the same economic growth as China is.
By contrast to China or Vietnam, Venezuela has only had 10 years to undertake reforms, and if its performance is analyzed by GDP alone, its economic management has been successful when compared to a number of other Latin American nations. Of course, it has also been more successful than other Latin American nations in a number of other areas, such as health, education, decreasing povery, etc. Indeed, its growth rate has been above 8% for a number of years since the end of the oil strike. Its growth has also not slowed nearly as much as many other Latin American nations.
"That is why many commentators say growth under 5% is very bad and effectively a recession for China."
I hope those commentators are not the same as the "respected experts" who would claim that capitalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that just by protecting property rights you will automatically get growth" because if they are we all know that they cannot be trusted. I would hate to think that you are merely "latching on" to the name of some expert or commentator to justify your arguments. However, you are claiming that by following an export led development model and having an economic development plan you will automatically get growth so maybe there are some common elements in your argument after all.
"But at that point it isn't a big deal - people in South Korea and Tawain already live well, far better than people in places like Venezuela, and so they aren't in desperate need for growth.
Venezuela is."
And it has been growing, at a far faster rate than many other Latin American nations. Its poverty rate has also been declining very rapidly.
For example:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/...aspx?
Symbol=VEB
"The country is currently classified as an Upper-Middle Income economy by the World Bank, with $ 8,282 GDP per capita."
By comparison:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/...aspx?
Symbol=PEN
Peru "is currently classified as a Low-Middle Income economy by the World Bank, with one of the lowest ($3,826) GDP per capita in the region."
But you say, it's not fair to compare Peru to Venezuela, since it is not growing at the same GDP rate right? Wrong, its GDP is growing very rapidly, and it also has not experienced a severe recession. But its economy is still significantly smaller and it has one of the lowest GDP per capita in the region. Thus, when you use the GDP of several countries to claim that another country is developing or not developing, and fail to analyze other factors, you can easily obtain misleading or incorrect results as you did in this case.
Capiche?
"BTW, there are two people here (or one with two names?)"
Two (at least) different ones.
the real,
thank you for taking the time to point out the weakness of ow and companies arguments. fun to read and refreshing in a world of slogans and ideas based on bias, bigotry and individualistic self interest.
keep on.
For example, your assertion that South Korea and Taiwan are models that should be followed by Venezuela based on their economic growth rates is undermined by the fact that they are not now in fact growing.
TheReal, I think OW is correct in pointing out that these countries are at a much higher stage of development and therefore cannot be expected to keep the high rates of growth like a developing economy would.
However, OW refuses to actually address the argument that countries like these that depend heavily on exports for their development put themselves at risk, as is clearly seen by how deeply they've been affected by the recession.
OW also refuses to address the fact that this dependence on export markets makes them vulnerable to the demands of the major powers, and in the end forces them to follow the kinds of policies that the WTO enforces upon them. This, in turn, ends up taking a big hit towards their development. Even the few export models like SK and Taiwan that managed to "leap through the closing window", as Hintons explains, are now seeing their development reversed as they are forced to open their domestic markets.
The ironic thing about OW citing Vietnam and China is that those are the Asian countries that are LEAST dependent on exports for growth. They have strong DOMESTIC-led growth, as I cited up above. And this is mostly due to the fact that agriculture played a key role early on in their development, another fact that OW chooses to ignore. In fact, China can't even be considered an export-led economy at all:
http://www.allroadsleadtochina.c.../
prc_270907.pdf
In other words, OW is citing countries that aren't even export-led models to back up his support for export-led models!!!
However, these countries are still being forced to open their domestic markets and could see some serious consequences because of it. Regardless of whether or not China is "developing" currently, (of course they are! They have been developing for 50 years!!) that does not mean they will ever ultimately reach developed status. Again, Hinton makes a good point about this too. OW ignores it.
OW has been right about many things, but one thing is obvious: he will never admit that he was wrong about the export-led models. Even the freaking IMF is admitting that export-led growth is not the way forward, yet OW is hanging on!!!
"TheReal, I think OW is correct in pointing out that these countries are at a much higher stage of development and therefore cannot be expected to keep the high rates of growth like a developing economy would."
I agree, I was simply pointing out the fallacy of selecting several countries that have a higher growth rate than another country but substantially different economic situations and history and than claiming based on the fact that the other country (Venezuela in this case) is not developing or is not pursuing the correct economic model. As shown above, it is just as easy to find other developing countries that are growing more slowly than Venezuela and claim based on the this fact alone that Venezuela is undertaking better development policies than those countries. The point is that it is necessary to analyze a variety of economic factors in each country before making sweeping statements, as OW frequently has, about what has caused that country to succeed of fail economically, what has caused it to achieve the growth rates it has, and whether this growth rate is truly reflective of other important factors (reduction in poverty, income inequality, etc).
The point is that it is necessary to analyze a variety of economic factors in each country before making sweeping statements, as OW frequently has, about what has caused that country to succeed of fail economically, what has caused it to achieve the growth rates it has, and whether this growth rate is truly reflective of other important factors (reduction in poverty, income inequality, etc).
TheRealAuthenticAnonymous |
Yes, you make a very good point here. GDP is not the whole story. I've tried to explain that to OW again and again. But I'm beginning to think it is a lost cause.
Using OW's logic we could have just as easily criticized China and Vietnam at certain points in their history when they had low, or negative GDP growth. China under Mao, for example, had some periods of very bad GDP numbers, and OW would have condemned them as a complete failure, without realizing that many of the Mao policies were key for China's future development. (the development that he now falsely attributes to "export-led" growth)
History matters, even though OW doesn't seem to understand that.
What's wrong OW??? Try "using your brain and making an argument". You might start by admitting that you were wrong about the export-led model. Even the fucking IMF is admitting it. Can you?
"In the first eight months of this year, 2,079 demonstrations took place, up from 1,602 in 2008, according to a recent study by Provea, a human rights organization, and Public Space, a policy group that monitors free speech issues. Nearly 500 people were hurt and 440 were detained, the study said." (WPost)
I'm not posting these statistics to argue with anyone, just to respond to comments earlier about whether or not stats were kept of protests.
"What's wrong OW??? Try "using your brain and making an argument". You might start by admitting that you were wrong about the export-led model. Even the fucking IMF is admitting it. Can you?"
Sorry. First I was busy. Then I read what you wrote, and more importantly what you linked to, and I almost got hurt laughing. Finally I am able to stop laughing long enough to type.
The ironic thing about OW citing Vietnam and China is that those are the Asian countries that are LEAST dependent on exports for growth. They have strong DOMESTIC-led growth, as I cited up above. And this is mostly due to the fact that agriculture played a key role early on in their development, another fact that OW chooses to ignore. In fact, China can't even be considered an export-led economy at all:
http://www.allroadsleadtochina.c.../ prc_270907.pdf
Seriously, Clueless, did you even read that article??????? Probably not, it probably popped up in a google search and, even though even all along you've said that China is export led, you get to crow that they are not an export led growth country so you link to it and asset it makes some point for you. Thruthfully, more than anything else it just shows you are a lazy stupid troll who has little in the way of critical thinking skills.
But seeing as I did waste my time reading it let me point out some of the more comical points.
First they start out with the correct assertion that you can't compare gross exports to GDP - first you have to drill down to what are the "value added" portion of the exports and then look at that. Fine, that is a valid point and well taken.
However, then you have the little issue that if you want to start working with the numbers you have to figure out what the portion of that products value added came in country. That is, if China exports a car how many of the components were made in China and China should therefore be credited with and how many were imported parts that China just used to assemble a car and those should not count as part of China's exports. This is a key point - a car exported from Germany where the Germans themselves made all the components does much more for Germany's economy than a car exported from Mexico, where most major components were imported from other countries and simply assembled in Mexico does for Mexico's economy.
So far this is all well and good. But the key then is figuring out if China is more like a country that makes most of their components domestically or if they are more like a Mexico or Thailand that are more along the lines of just doing assembly.
How do they get this key information? Easy, THEY JUST MAKE IT UP. On the bottom of page 2 they just make up the numbers for what they think are domestic content for different industries across Asia and then they apply it to China. So lo and behold China shouldn't get credit for a lot of their exports because they are just importing things, doing a little work on them, and then re-exporting them. AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE THESE ASSHOLES MADE IT UP AND TOLD US IT IS TRUE SO I GUESS IT MUST REALLY BE TRUE, right Clueless?????
So it turns out that China really doesn't do much of anything - they just import some components, assemble them into something bigger and so they are just like Thailand - because Mr. Jonathan Anderson at UBS ASSUMED that is what they do.
Well, Clueless, your arguement is on really firm ground here, NOT!! Are you starting to feel bad you didn't read the paper or would that just have gone right over your head anyways? Probably the latter.
Then it gets better. In the third paragraph from the bottom on page two they actually decide that even when an exporter bought something from another Chinese manufacture they would apply those same bogus numbers on domestic value added to all those components... and on down the line.
So in other words not only is this idiot assuming that 50% of the value added on clothing exported from China really just imports (in other words, China presumably can't make thread, or buttons, or dye, or fabric and has to import 50% of it!!!) they are assuming that if they buy thread from another Chinese company that company didn't really make it but imported 50% of the value of it!!!!!!!!
Well, I guess if you are going to base your case on numbers you are pulling out of your ass (literally) you might as well go the whole way and just make everything up.
If you run through the "calculations" they do on the following pages you'll see that they do the same type of improvising and hand waving to come up with whatever they want.
But later on there are some real doozies one of which shows the authors complete stupidity and the other shows complete bad faith.
On page seven, the author tries to deal with the obvious question of if China is just a assembling with so little value added how come its trade surplus has gone way up. Here is what the author says in the second paragraph under the charts:
China's rising trade surplus isn't due to an acceleration in export growth, exports actually slowed over the past five years. Rather, the real culprit is the sharp decline in import growth since 2004 - which, as we have argued many times before, is due to excess capacity creation in domestic heavy industrial sectors
uhhhh, I wonder if it never occured to the author that imports might be lessing relative to exports because China could be making MORE THINGS DOMESTICALLY. That is in 1995 when China exported a radio many of the compenents had been imported, so when exports of radios increased the import of radio components increased and therefore both exports and imports went up in tamdem. But now maybe (did this never occur to the author or Clueless) China may make many of those radio components domestically so they can increase exports of radios WITHOUT increasing imports of radio components!!!!!!
Given that every indication is that CHina is trying to master technologies to be able to make full products (just like Tawain and SK did before) I think this could well be happening. But no, the author just cluelessly assumes it isn't
Now for the point that shows abolute dishonesty. On pages 8 and 9 the author shows graphs of various countries and how their GDP varies with increases and decreases of exports. Some countries have a high correlation between exports and GDP growth and that means they are export led growth. Some, like the United States, don't have that correlation, so their economies are not export led. So far, so good.
Then author does the same graph for China, sees that changes in exports and GDP seem not to be correlated, and therefore states China is not an export dependent economy.
OK HERE IS A TES FOR YOU CLUELESS. SEE IF YOUR TWO FUNCTIONING NUERONS CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH CHART 13 ON PAGE 9. EVEN A NUMBER PHOBIC DINGBAT LIKE YOU CAN PROBABLY FIGURE IT OUT. So go ahead, don't make me look bad for having faith in you, tell us what is wrong with it!!!
Tosh/Clueless whatever your name it you really need to start a) reading what you link to so you don't waste everyone else's time and b) developing some critical thinking skills and stop argueing just by quote [eg, so and so professor or expert or the IMF said this so it MUST be true, I don't even have to think about it].
Earth to Clueless, most so-called "experts" think capitalism is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Do you believe that? And if you are smart enough to realize those experts might not be right then don't you think the same critical thought should be applied to other "experts", even those on the "left". Seriously man, don't park your brain at the door.
I'll go over the other stuff you said above as well as the other commentor when I have more time but this is just silly. Now you quote the fucking IMF to bolster your arguement on why exporting doesn't work?!?!?!?! Now the IMF is a credible source on analysis of development strategies even though they were always peddling their free market bullshit and were always against teh state led development that worked for Tawain and SK EVEN WHEN THEY WERE DOING IT?????
Or how 'bout your hero Walden Bello who've you linked to many times here?? Check this out:
http://www.ifg.org/analysis/imf/...mf/
imf_asia.htm
The swift evaporation of the Asian economic "miracle" probably ranks second only to the unraveling of Soviet socialism as the greatest surprise of the last half-century.
The Asian economic miracle "evaporated????? I guess he forgot to tell the Chinese who have seen their GDP more than double since he wrote this crap. Guess he forgot to tell the Vietnamese too!!! And hell, did I miss something and SK and Tawain slipped back into third world status????
Oops, I forgot one point on the idiot from UBS's article. It was actually from 2007 and he was writing to explain why a recession in China's export markets wouldn't have much of an impact on China - because, according to him, China doesn't depend much on exports.
Now, we've already seen how absurd his methodology was. But just as importantly we've seen that China's exports dropped off and guess what - China's GDP growth has slowed by about half. And if not for the fact that China launched a massive spending program (with money they saved up from all their exports!!!) the drop off would have been worse and they could have even gone into a recession.
Why did China's economic growth slow so much?? Not because of a financial crisis because their financial system had no crises. Not because of any internal shock because they had none. It was becasue of a massive fall off in exports. And again, they are only ok because they saved up shitloads of money from all their exports and can now spend it (think of it this way - they have a REAL FONDEN which has lots of money in it, unlike the pretend FONDEN in Venezuela which is practically broke).
So yeah, sure, China doesn't depend on exports. Only someone truly Clueless would so easily step in that bullshit.
"Thruthfully, more than anything else it just shows you are a lazy stupid troll who has little in the way of critical thinking skills.
ow | Homepage | 10.06.09 - 6:00 pm | #"
Very good OW, I'm impressed that you have seen that Clueless Chris is nothing more than a partisan, love-struck, Chavista hack. He only relies on his socialist - communistic proclivities and cannot critically think through breaking out of a paper bag.
I'm glad you have seen the light...
Tosh, if the exchange between you and ow was in boxing, they would be taking you to a hospital right now. He totally humilliated you. Learn from Mano de Piedra Duran (you are too young to know him, by the time he was fighting your Dad must have been smoking pot in a dorm and impregnating your teenage Mom), and just say "no mas".
Seriously, Clueless, did you even read that article???????
This article isn't the only place that says it. The IMF does too. But I see you just decided to skip that part and waste all of your time trying to punch holes in this one article.
How do they get this key information? Easy, THEY JUST MAKE IT UP. On the bottom of page 2 they just make up the numbers for what they think are domestic content for different industries across Asia and then they apply it to China.
Yeah, you're right OW, except for the fact that they go on give the official numbers later on. But, oh well, why deal with the actual findings when you can try to discount them with some stupid excuse right?
Reminds me of the time that you discounted an article I posted here because it was "old".
OK HERE IS A TES FOR YOU CLUELESS. SEE IF YOUR TWO FUNCTIONING NUERONS CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT IS WRONG WITH CHART 13 ON PAGE 9.
You must really be angry that I have completely destroyed your whole "export-led" argument. I know it hurts when you have to admit you are wrong. But you should try to do it more gracefully.
Tosh/Clueless whatever your name it you really need to start a) reading what you link to so you don't waste everyone else's time and b) developing some critical thinking skills and stop argueing just by quote [eg, so and so professor or expert or the IMF said this so it MUST be true, I don't even have to think about it].
Funny OW, because by doing this you actually avoid any of my real arguments. You pretend that I haven't made an argument, but just quoted other people.
The truth is (and anyone who has read anything I've written knows) that I've long been claiming that China has a huge internal market that makes their development different. I just quoted the article to back up my argument. But instead of actually ADDRESSING THAT ARGUMENT you try to discredit the argument by picking at details in the article. You simply can't address the argument.
Let me ask one more time, and see if you can address it. Are you denying that China's huge internal market has any influence on their development??? Can you address the fact that both China's and Vietnam's development was centered on Agriculture in the early years? Or are you just going to keep ignoring these arguments because they are uncomfortable for you?
Now you quote the fucking IMF to bolster your arguement on why exporting doesn't work?!?!?!?!
Hey Einstein, I'm not sure if you knew this but the IMF has long been a champion of the export-led model. The fact that they are now admitting that it isn't the right path says a lot. Well, it says a lot to those of us with a brain.
As Thomas Kuhn put it, "a paradigm is really in crisis when its best practitioners desert it."
Now the IMF is a credible source on analysis of development strategies even though they were always peddling their free market bullshit
Apparently you're too stupid to understand a simple argument. The funny thing is that you agree with them on the export-led model. So what does that say about you?
Or how 'bout your hero Walden Bello who've you linked to many times here?? Check this out:
Did you actually care to make an argument regarding this article? I know real arguments aren't your strong point, but I'm having trouble understanding what your point is.
Why did China's economic growth slow so much?? Not because of a financial crisis because their financial system had no crises. Not because of any internal shock because they had none. It was becasue of a massive fall off in exports.
Hahahahahaha!! You are a genius OW.
So let me get this straight. I make the argument that China is less dependent on exports than other export-led models, and you come back with the retort that China was affected by a drop in exports???? Are you fucking retarded???
OF COURSE CHINA'S GROWTH SLOWED BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING GLOBAL ECONOMIC CRISIS!!!! No one is saying they are completely disconnected from the world and they don't export anything!!! Do you have a brain?
The whole point is that they were LESS affected than other Asian countries because THEY ARE LESS DEPENDENT ON EXPORTS!!!! This is simply undeniable, no matter how hard you try to divert the subject.
CHINA IS LESS DEPENDENT ON EXPORTS THAN THE REST OF THE ASIA'S SO-CALLED EXPORT-LED MODELS. SO IS VIETNAM. This is why growth has not beef affected as much. It is the OPPOSITE of what you were claiming.
You made the claim that they were still growing because they are following the "export-led" model. The truth is that they are still growing because they are among the Asian countries that are LEAST dependent on exports.
So yeah, sure, China doesn't depend on exports. Only someone truly Clueless would so easily step in that bullshit.
ow | Homepage | 10.06.09 - 6:56 pm | #
No one ever said that. When you actually want to address my REAL arguments, and not your own made up version of them, then please do so. Otherwise you are a waste of time.
Please address the following:
1. Vietnam and China depend much LESS on exports than the Asian export models. Those that depend more on exports have been hit very hard recently, and have little prospect of recovering (even according to the IMF). Can you address this argument??
2. Vietnam and China both passed through revolutionary land reform and centered their development policies on agriculture, creating more domestic-led growth. You have said you are opposed to ag reform, yet you cite China and Vietnam as support for your model?? Are you confused?
3. Vietnam and China both began their development process with revolutions that took place decades ago. Any comparison of their current economies with Venezuela is pointless and stupid.
You've made a valiant effort throughout this thread to avoid actually addressing the arguments being made. I'll be waiting to see if you can actually address what I'm saying, or if you'll just continue your usual nonsense.
The Asian economic miracle "evaporated????? I guess he forgot to tell the Chinese who have seen their GDP more than double since he wrote this crap.
You see OW, the difference between you and a world-renowned scholar like Bello is that Walden Bello actually understands that the Asian miracle refers to the Asian Tigers. It does not refer to China.
Seriously man, could you attempt to grow a brain before trying to refute Walden Bello?
And hell, did I miss something and SK and Tawain slipped back into third world status????
Uh, you did miss something. They are quickly becoming recolonized and their economies are taking major hits. Bello has written whole books on the topic. You might check one out before making any more retarded comments like this one.
Tosh, if the exchange between you and ow was in boxing, they would be taking you to a hospital right now.
Funny thing, the boxing match isn't between OW and me. It is between OW and his made up version of me.
Since he can't seem to actually address my real arguments, he prefers to attack things that have nothing to do with what I am saying.
hina's Wu says country to seek domestic-led growth
Hmmm, apparently even China is admitting that export-led growth isn't the way forward?
One wonders what it would take for OW to see the light when even the countries he cites for support of export-led growth are no longer pursuing that. Hmmmm.....
Ow, I can't read the whole stuff, but this be said:
1) china depends indeed heavily on exports
but
2) this must change and they are working on that.
Venezuela should promote export, but it should not bet on that alone.
I am a capitalist, but I wish the "socialist" president of Venezuela did for education and social care a tenth of what Swedish kings of the XVIII century did for their country (read Diario de Viaje by Francisco de Miranda).
A tenth? A hundredth! But then I suppose Hugo wants to keep Venezuelans as Gómez did...stupid, stupid and ignorant...but give them the sensation they are better off with some shitty "medical" course where they learn
what pills to prescribe for cancer and above all who Zamora was, who Maisanta and what Hugo did or not for Venezuela.
Ow, I can't read the whole stuff, but this be said:
1) china depends indeed heavily on exports
Obviously they don't depend that heavily on exports, because recently they have seen their exports fall drastically, yet they still maintain high growth. Those countries that really depend heavily on exports, such as Japan, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, etc., have seen their growth go into negative numbers. China, on the other hand, maintains very high growth.
It seems that OW wants to avoid discussing the fact that those countries most dependent on exports have been the countries who have been hit the worst by the crisis. He clings on to China and Vietnam to maintain support for a strategy that even the IMF is now realizing doesn't work. (And then responds by attacking the IMF??? Hello??? Do you have a brain???)
The funny part is that the countries he is clinging on to are the Asian countries that ARE LEAST DEPENDENT ON EXPORTS!!! And the whole fucking reason that Vietnam and China are still growing is not because of export-led growth. It is because they are NOT as dependent on exports, and have significant DOMESTIC-LED growth.
But, again, OW can't address that, because that would mean his argument is worthless (as we all now know).
The ironic part about all this is that I've been saying for years, and quoting experts like Walden Bello and Robert Brenner, that world demand is not sufficient to repeat the South Korean development process based on exports. Now, in the middle of a world crisis, the export economies are all seeing exactly that. This is why countries like China and Vietnam are realizing that the way forward is domestic-led growth!!!
But along comes OW to claim that these countries are still growing because they are export-led economies!!! I mean seriously, do you have a brain OW? Vietnam and China are both pumping millions of dollars into their DOMESTIC economies, because they now realize that they cannot depend on export markets!!!!!! They are now turning towards domestic-led growth as they realize that export-led growth is not sustainable!!!!
But one has to wonder why OW is incapable of actually addressing any of this. Will he instead go on a tirade against some chart on page 13 that has nothing to do with the real argument I am making?? Seems likely, which is why it has become clear that any real discussion about this with OW is a waste of time.
CC, even if China was the perfect example of EOI development, why would it matter? China and Venezuela could never develop from the same place - China has more potential than any other country in the world for sheer economic might just due to their massive population alone; in South America the country with the largest population also has the largest economy, and it isn't Venezuela (Though Venezuela has hardly been lagging behind Brazil...)...Venezuela has a higher standard of living than China to begin with, you aren't going to be able to attract the same low wage industries in Venezuela compared to Vietnam and China. This is comparing apples and oranges, the only thing China and Venezuela have in common is both have made massive leaps forward on the Human Development Index in recent years: http://www.earthtimes.org/articl...ment-
index.html
But other than this, I don't see why you are bothing to argue with OW and co about a meaningless comparison, when Latin American and Asian economics have such different problems, I thought this "one size fits all" philosophy for development was discredited with the IMF a decade ago.
CC, even if China was the perfect example of EOI development, why would it matter? China and Venezuela could never develop from the same place - China has more potential than any other country in the world for sheer economic might just due to their massive population alone;
Yes, I have made this point over and over again for years. Not only does China have a huge advantage due to their immense domestic population, but they also began their development process half a century ago with agrarian reform policies and state-led industrialization.
I agree that the comparison is totally bogus. Yet try getting OW to address any of that. He won't. Instead he'll go off on some tirade that has nothing to do with your argument.
How can these people be so ignorant?
A percentage point of growth in china corresponds to a tiny fraction of percent in a developed nation, a percentage of growth in congo or Venezuela corresponds to an even tinier fraction.
china still exports more than others, specially because they sell the needed stuff. Germany was very hit and yet the "recession" you see in Germany is even better than the feel the chinese have in the middle of a boom, not to talk about about the best year Venezuela's oil boom produced (last year)
Well, I see Tosh/Clueless made no attempt to respond to even a single point here. Why am I not surprised? Numbers/thinking/analyzing are not his thing.
Sadly for Venezuela these shortcomings extend beyond internet trolls to the people running the country.
Got a totally out of whack exchange rate that is wiping out your tradables sector and making an oil rich government broke because it gets short changed (by itself!!!!) on its own oil revenue? So what do you do to fix it? Maybe fix the exchange rate?
Naaaaaaah - you borrow more money. $5 billion this week and today comes Ali Rodriguez saying they will do alot more shortly:
http://www.aporrea.org/actualida...ad/
n143533.html
At this rate their debt to GDP ratio won't stay low for long. I guess they are trying to keep up with Obama.
Thing is, at least the dollar floats so the U.S. can get saved by its own currency going down the drain. The Venezuelans are so stupid they use their own currency to hang themselves.
Hmm, I didn't know this: China is already the largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world:
During the first six months of this year, China surpassed the United States as being the world's largest exporter. Only five years ago, the United States exported more than double the amount of China. During the first half of 2006, Chinese exports of manufactured goods reached $404 billion compared to $367 billion in exports by the United States.
Apparently the idiot that Clueless linked to but didn't read didn't know this:
The composition of Chinese exports is undergoing a "structural shift" away from labor-intensive products to high tech and value-added goods. Chinese exports of textiles and apparel declined to 14.6 percent of total exports during the first half of 2006.
OMG, the Chinese make high value added products now - who'd have thought!!!
And even worse for the bullshit that Tosh/Clueless quotes but doesn't read:
The data also reflect another fundamental change in Chinese manufacturing. For years, China imported large quantities of parts and components and its cheap labor shops were used as a platform for final assembly. But the share of imported content "is not nearly as large as sometimes reported, and the share of Chinese value added is rising steadily," writes Preeg.
Foreign firms manufacturing in China are buying more of their parts from local suppliers. Large companies are providing suppliers with training, technical support and systems for improving quality. "One Japanese automotive company is in the process of increasing Chinese value added from 75 percent to 95 percent, as a result of almost all of its Japanese parts suppliers shifting production to China," says Preeg. "The Chinese export platform issue...has been largely a myth."
So the Chinese are making more components and more value added internally - exactly what idiots who want to assume they don't have an export economy had to assume they were NOT doing.
BTW, isn't this cute:
http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/file...thru-july-
1.JPG
I wonder how a domestically focused economy would have a its exports skyrocket from a little more than $200 billion in to $1.4 TRILLION in less than a decade. What is that? A 600% increase in like 7 or 8 years. Yeah baby, you have to be really domestically oreinted to do that!!!
The link for the quotes is here:
http://www.manufacturingnews.com.../0905/
art1.html
BTW, TOSH/Clueless, you're embarrassing me in front of Kepler. I've spent a lot of time telling him that the US higher education system is pretty good. But you still haven't responded with what's wrong with it. Hint, is is the X-axis. Please don't make American college students look bad. See if you can come up with an intelligent comment about that chart.
Ow,
I told you I believed the US education system has a lot of variance.
It has most of the top universities and some fine schools in some areas. At the same time,
the average pupil according to PISA is well under Oecd level. If you check the 2006 general PISA report you can see precisely that.
Tosh is probably one of those pulling the whole bloody stats down. Bloody little bastard.
Tosh, could you tell us where you studied? I want to warn my Venezuelan friends who are emigrating to the US not to send their children there.
I thought Tosh had done most of his studying in Merida, Venezuela when he lived there... No?
Well, I see Tosh/Clueless made no attempt to respond to even a single point here. Why am I not surprised? Numbers/thinking/analyzing are not his thing.
Hahahaha, I even numbered the points above for you, yet you still can't manage to address any of them. That's hilarious.
Hmm, I didn't know this: China is already the largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world:
Again, you just can't address the point can you OW??
The point is NOT that China doesn't export. You are arguing with a straw man here. The point is that China has continued to grow during the crisis because they are NOT as dependent on exports as the export-led models. They have strong domestic-led growth, which they are now turning more towards in light of the failure of the export-led strategy.
Can you address that point? I wonder how many times I'll have to ask?
OMG, the Chinese make high value added products now - who'd have thought!!!
Again, straw man. Who exactly are you arguing with OW?
I wonder how a domestically focused economy would have a its exports skyrocket from a little more than $200 billion in to $1.4 TRILLION in less than a decade. What is that? A 600% increase in like 7 or 8 years. Yeah baby, you have to be really domestically oreinted to do that!!!
Again, not the argument being made. The argument is about how China has significant domestic-led growth which has kept it growing even as exports have fallen off. No one said they don't export, or that exports aren't significant.
Once again, OW is apparently too stupid to address the argument at hand.
Please don't make American college students look bad. See if you can come up with an intelligent comment about that chart.
Hahahahaha!!! Did you even go to college? Your constant spelling errors would lead one to think you didn't even finish high school.
Address my points, or admit you are wrong. It is really that simple.
Everybody but Tosh:
I don't see why you are wasting time with such a troll as tosh.
Think for a moment: is it really the effort? Do you think honestly he will ever see the light?
Do you think he is honestly trying to discuss things in an honest way?
"Think for a moment: is it really the effort? Do you think honestly he will ever see the light?"
I'm been reading through these threads - and although I fully empathize with your (and others) frustration, I do derive some value from the discussion.
The more I read about Chavez, Venezuela and Chavismo (sadly these three entities are rapidly converging) these days it intrigues me how you can put a positive spin on what is going on. Erratic foreign policy? Economic incompetence? Steep declines in manufacturing? More distortions to deal with existing economic distortions? Increasingly reactionary policies and laws?
Tosh/GIV/Clueless/Anonymous or whatever he is called these days provides that spin. He spins the impossible. And in a way that provides some value.
ow,
hope you find time, inspiration and energy to post once in a while!
some of your replies in the comment thread could easily be short posts.
Clueless thinks because China is still having growth that means they aren't an export led economy - after all if exports tanked (which they did) and China depends on exports to fuel its growth (which it does) then the Chinese economy should be in a recession now.
Only one problem with this line of reasoning - clueless has apparently never heard of the term "stimulus". The Chinese government ennacted a huge $580 billion stimulus package to build infrastructure and the like to keep them growing throught the recession.
For Clueless's education:
http://www.businessweek.com/
glob...0422_793026.htm
China's Stimulus Package Boosts Economy
From increased sales for construction companies and automakers to a reawakened real estate market, China's stimulus plan is working—so far
Here are some key points from the article:
Across China, steelmakers, cement producers, and construction companies are seeing sales soar as Beijing's stimulus plan opens the spigot on funding for railways, airports, and power plants.
While first-quarter gross domestic product grew 6.1%, the lowest in almost a decade, many analysts are now turning more bullish on China's economy. On Apr. 22, Goldman Sachs (GS) said it expects Chinese GDP growth to hit 8.3% this year, compared with an earlier forecast of 6%. Other banks have become more optimistic, too. Citing what she called "very strong stimulus-related bank-lending growth," Tao Wang, head of China economic research at UBS (UBS), last week upgraded the bank's 2009 GDP growth forecast to 7.5%, from its earlier forecast of 6.5%. "While the external outlook remains bleak, there have been signs of domestic activity picking up in China, as a result of the government's policy stimulus," she wrote.
Beijing's leaders are patting themselves on the back for moving fast to prime the pump. Speaking at a conference over the weekend, Li Rongrong, head of the watchdog organization for China's largest state-owned enterprises, said earnings at those companies grew 26% in March compared with the same period a year ago. In a speech on Apr. 18 at the same conference, on the tropical island of Hainan, Premier Wen Jiabao said the government deserved credit for the good news. "China's rapid reaction in rolling out the stimulus package has resolved some prominent problems in the economy, strengthened market confidence, and stabilized people's expectations," Wen said.
Here is yet more:
Much of the juice is coming from state-owned banks. While the Obama Administration struggles to get U.S. banks to start lending again, Chinese banks are following government orders and flooding the country with loans. In the first three months of the year, new lending by Chinese banks grew 30%, to $676 billion. That means the banks are already more than 90% toward Beijing's target for the whole year.
With more than $1.95 trillion in foreign reserves [holy shit, where did they get all those foriegn reserves if this is a domestically oriented country??? - OW], the central government can afford to open its coffers, too. Earlier this month, Beijing announced it will spend $125 billion to build hospitals across China, as well as to expand medical insurance to cover 90% of China's 1.3 billion people by 2011. The government has also announced a significant expansion of its pension program. Since the global recession is hammering China's exports (they fell 20% in the first quarter of 2009), economists say the country must rely more on consumption to drive economic growth. And to boost consumer confidence, the government needs to provide better medical care, more secure pensions, and higher-quality schools, though many say it could take a generation before the Chinese abandon their penurious ways. Consumption in China now only makes up some 37% of GDP [hah, growth is domestically driven when consumption is only 37% of GDP - sure Clueless!!!!], compared with 70% in the U.S. "The government needs to carry out reform to unleash potential demand and turn it into purchasing power," says Xu Xiaonian, a professor of economics and finance at the China Europe International Business School in Shanghai. That will "get people to spend money instead of saving it."
And here is the final key piont (sure to be lost on Clueless and simply provoke him to want to change the subject for the millionth time):
"A short-term stimulus package is not the same thing as a long-term development strategy," cautions Fan Gang, director of the Beijing-based National Economic Research Institute China Reform Foundation.
That is right, a short term stimulus package is NOT the same as what their long term development strategy is. Only someone totally Clueless would confuse the two.
China saw their exports drop, they spent some of the TONNS of money they have from all their trade surplusses to stimulate the economy and stay out of a recession, and when the world economy recovers they'll go back to ramping up their export led growth. That is what happens in countries that have competant leaders and planners who know what they are doing - so unlike the ignorant clowns we saw babbling on in Caracas today.
"Hahahahaha!!! Did you even go to college? Your constant spelling errors would lead one to think you didn't even finish high school."
Sure, I did. In my experience university level education tends to focus on THINKING and PROBLEM SOLVING and ANALYTICAL skills. They generally never cared about things like spelling which can be handled by word processors. You should think about working on some of those things yourself. All I've seen you do is cut and paste and link to articles which you apparently don't read. These discussion might actually be worth something if you could think about and discuss what it is you link to and copy from.
Anyways, I am still waiting for an explanation on chart 13. Seriously man, have you even looked at it?
Tor hopefully I'll find time to do some posts.
I definitely have at least two in mind one on gasline prices and another on agriculture.
When I have time...
CC, read the quote you gave from Horton in the previous thread.
a few things:
1) he claims China was trying to follow the NIC export model (which they were and are) something you are now curiously trying to deny.
2) he claims that when he wrote this (1990) the "window" was "being shut" on that model due to the world economies supposed slow down and the consequent lack of markets. But just looking at Chinas exports and growth since then you can see that this prediction turned out to be wildly off base.
3) his most worthwhile point was that China may not be able to follow the SK model completely because it is so much bigger than SK. That is, SK could have what were for it really large exports go to the US and they didn't effect the US that much because SK was simply too small to produce huge quantities. But China with its huge population, if it continues to grow its exports, will at some point reach the limit of what anyone else in the world could possibly absorb. That is true. But I think the idea there is that once that point is reached (who knows what exactly that point is or if they've reached it yet) they will indeed have to switch to more internal growth which will of necessity slow growth. But by that time the country will have likely made huge and irreversible progress in developing.
4) you make a point about poverty. Sure lots of Chinese are still poor. In absolute terms the number is huge. But at the same time hundreds of millions have seen their standards of living increase and can expect them to keep increasing. China started out being way poorer than even most Latin American countries. Soon it will be richer (even in per capita terms) than they are. That is a huge accomplishment.
5) I can't believe you can seriously assert that China is not truly developing. Just look at all the scientists and engineers their universities are turning out. That Venezuelan universities aren't doing anything like that is just one more example of Venezuela NOT really developing even with its GDP growth. China on the other hand definitely is developing.
ow, what happened to you??? You used to be so understanding and patient...
1) he claims China was trying to follow the NIC export model (which they were and are) something you are now curiously trying to deny.
My claim is that they are LESS dependent on exports than other export models, and that is why growth is still high even after exports have dropped off.
You still can't address this argument. Instead you go off citing all kinds of irrelevant statistics about China's economy. Address the argument.
It is China's domestic-led growth that has kept it growing as exports have fallen off. Their continued growth is not due to export-led growth as you claim.
2) he claims that when he wrote this (1990) the "window" was "being shut" on that model due to the world economies supposed slow down and the consequent lack of markets. But just looking at Chinas exports and growth since then you can see that this prediction turned out to be wildly off base.
Hahahahaha!!! Actually his prediction has just been completely verified as world markets have collapsed, and even the IMF is admitting that export-led growth is not the way to go!!! Even China and Vietnam are admitting that the way forward is more balanced growth, and increased domestic-led growth!!! Apparently OW is the only one hanging on to the export-led strategy. I guess some people are just really slow.
But at the same time hundreds of millions have seen their standards of living increase and can expect them to keep increasing. China started out being way poorer than even most Latin American countries. Soon it will be richer (even in per capita terms) than they are.
Actually statistics show that China's growth is having an ever diminishing impact on poverty. Early on the fast growth made a big dent in poverty, but poverty is decreasing much less rapidly now. Again, Hinton is being proven right, as China has much too large a population to follow the South Korean model.
5) I can't believe you can seriously assert that China is not truly developing.
Can you please point out where I said this? I have never once said that China is not developing. In fact, I said that they have been developing for the last 50 years, ever since the communist revolution and agrarian reform that was necessary to set it on its path to development.
However, I have pointed out to you that you cannot make the claim that a country is developing just because it has high growth. Even in China, much of this growth is going to make the rich richer, while rural areas continue to be extremely poor.
That Venezuelan universities aren't doing anything like that is just one more example of Venezuela NOT really developing even with its GDP growth. China on the other hand definitely is developing.
This is just a completely stupid argument. China wasn't turning out scientists and engineers 10 years into the revolution either. In fact, China was pretty chaotic at that time. Had you been alive then you would have been condemning those "stupid" Chinese for not developing. So why do you expect Venezuela to do something that it took China 50 years to do?
You obviously don't have a clue what the precursors are for economic development. All you do is sit on the sidelines and watch GDP numbers, and then you cheer for the team that has the highest numbers without understanding a damn thing about how they got there.
Again, can you address my points up above about China's and Vietnam's economic history??? They both centered their development plans on agriculture, which created more domestic-led growth. As I quoted up above, China and Vietnam are still growing through the crisis because they have significant domestic-led growth. Can you address that?
Can you address my actual arguments? Or will you just continue to avoid them?
chris/multiple personality man,
First of all: you think what china is going through now is part of a plan that started 50 (actually 60) years ago.
No, it is not so.
I repeat: NO.
china went in zigzags and then sometimes completely backwards and the policies taken part after the "cultural revolution", for instance, were not "OK, now step 11", they were a way of trying to correct very bad choices often made by personal reasons. Mao Zedong invented that cultural revolution in a personal struggle. So don't bullshit us with "it is a programme that must take at least 100 years"
We are talking about china's real programme starting in the eighties, with Deng.
Of course there was some minimal progress before, like literacy rose to something like 60% in a country which uses Hanzi characters, where you need at least 1400 characters to make sense of normal texts and over 4000 characters to be functional. They also stopped maiming women's feet.
But in reality china was way more backward in 1998 than Venezuela was.
I have seen and sometimes worked with chinese computer scientists in Europe. I have seen how they are doing now what the Japanese were doing in the last half of the XIX century. There are many who don't match to German or Scandinavian standards, but my Goodness, are they learning fast!
Unlike Ow or you I don't believe there is a magic formula of one strategy only, export or inbound-targeted production. We must start expanding the products we export (actually, we really don't generate a product, but raw stuff, less the extraction process) at the same time as we see small but important ways of generating products needed to develop life in smaller cities outside carabobo-caracas-miranda-zulia, the countryside, etc. People won't ever go back in masses, but we may start stopping further expansions of our main cities, we may start making the countryside more productive.
...But OW addressed every one of your arguments, with quotes and links, and proved you wrong. What's the point of saying, "that wasn't my argument. My argument was..." and repeat *exactly* the same line of thinking debunked two paragraphs before by OW?
Did you understand what OW wrote?
How can China be less dependent on exports, if they needed to inject money into the economy because their exports fell off?
OW explained this, in extenso.
Stop trolling and wasting people's time.
"China wasn't turning out scientists and engineers 10 years into the revolution either."
The chinese revolution was a disaster until the 80s. China did not develop much at all during the first 30 years. Besides Ven is much richer and further along than China was in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
"Can you address my actual arguments? Or will you just continue to avoid them?"
ow addressed most of your points. Reread.
That silly hijo de papa comunista (this is not an ad hominem attack) will say that the millions Mao Zedong sent to death in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cul...ural_Revolution
were a necessary step to this.
The chinese revolution was a disaster until the 80s. China did not develop much at all during the first 30 years. Besides Ven is much richer and further along than China was in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
Hahahaha, you are brilliant Tor. I always love it when you make these broad sweeping generalizations about things that you have knowledge of.
ow addressed most of your points. Reread.
Tor | 10.09.09 - 11:57 am | #
Please show me where he addressed these points:
Please address the following:
1. Vietnam and China depend much LESS on exports than the Asian export models. Those that depend more on exports have been hit very hard recently, and have little prospect of recovering (even according to the IMF). Can you address this argument??
2. Vietnam and China both passed through revolutionary land reform and centered their development policies on agriculture, creating more domestic-led growth. You have said you are opposed to ag reform, yet you cite China and Vietnam as support for your model?? Are you confused?
3. Vietnam and China both began their development process with revolutions that took place decades ago. Any comparison of their current economies with Venezuela is pointless and stupid.
How can China be less dependent on exports, if they needed to inject money into the economy because their exports fell off?
Holy shit, I'm dealing with some extremely stupid people here I see.
You see there is a subtle difference between being LESS dependent on exports than other export models, and being COMPLETELY UNAFFECTED by a drop in exports. There is a difference there, but I know it is hard to percieve if you are an extreme idiot.
First of all: you think what china is going through now is part of a plan that started 50 (actually 60) years ago.
No, it is not so.
I repeat: NO.
Kepler, you are a moron:
The conventional view of the Mao era is that Mao Zedong sacrificed modern economic development to "ideological purity" in a vain and costly quest for some sort of socialist utopia. Yet the actual historical record of the era suggests that Mao was more successful as an economic modernizer than as a builder of socialism. Over the Mao period (1949–1976), China was transformed from a primarily agrarian nation to a relatively industrialized one, the ratio of the value of industrial production to total production increasing from 30 to 72 percent. From 1952 (when industrial output was restored to its highest prewar levels) until the close of the Mao era, Chinese industry grew at an average annual rate of 11 percent, the most rapid pace of industrialization achieved by any major nation (developed or developing) during that time. Indeed, Maoist industrialization, however crude the process was in many respects, compares favorably with comparable decades in the industrialization of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union, hitherto generally regarded as the three most successful cases of modernization among major "latecomers" on the world industrial scene.
Rapid industrialization during the Mao period exacted enormous human and social costs, as had been the case with other late-industrializing countries, and most of the costs were borne by the peasantry. Agricultural production barely kept pace with population growth, and living standards in both town and countryside largely stagnated after 1957 as the state extracted most of the surplus product to finance the development of heavy industry. Yet although the blunders, deficiencies, inequalities, and imbalances that marked and marred the process were many and grave, future historians nevertheless will record the Mao era as the time when the basic foundations for China's modern industrialism were laid.
Source: http://www.oxfordreference.com/p...samplep-
02.html
Tor, Ow,
It is incredible but it was just chance that the hijo de papa turned out to be chavista. He could very had been a creationist fundamentalist.
There is no difference.
"1. Vietnam and China depend much LESS on exports than the Asian export models. Those that depend more on exports have been hit very hard recently, and have little prospect of recovering (even according to the IMF). Can you address this argument?? "
China has a higher proportion of exports than Japan and Vietnam has almost the same proportion as Tawain and significantly more than South Korea. So you are just plain factually wrong on this point.
"2. Vietnam and China both passed through revolutionary land reform and centered their development policies on agriculture, creating more domestic-led growth. You have said you are opposed to ag reform, yet you cite China and Vietnam as support for your model?? Are you confused?"
I've already re-butted this but you refuse to believe it. Fine. Note, however, with your latest quote on China YOU just rebutted it. China had manufacturing growing much faster than agriculture over the period 1949 to 1976. Agricultural incomes even stagnated so obviously agriculture didn't provide a market for their increased manufacturing (yeah that is right - China had a real revolution and a planned economy so they didn't have to worry about this little problem which Venezuela has because despite all its rhetoric it keeps a market economy!!).
So if China could have an 11% growth rate in industry all along why can't Venezuela get industry to grow??
"Vietnam and China both began their development process with revolutions that took place decades ago. Any comparison of their current economies with Venezuela is pointless and stupid"
The only problem is all the differences are in Venezuelas favor. Venezuela was much more developed to begin with. Venezuela never went through gigantic wars that devestated the country like Vietnam and even to some extent China did. And Venezuela gets tens of billions of dollars in surplus from oil revenue while China and Vietnam have no equivelant income source.
So Venezuela could be and should be making way more progress but they aren't. Instead, they are still simply a rentist importing country as Ali Rodriguez said yesterday and with industrial production going down, and even staying flat at other times, that isn't going to change anytime soon.
The only things Venezuela has going for it are oil and OPEC. That is hardly revolutionary.
China has a higher proportion of exports than Japan and Vietnam has almost the same proportion as Tawain and significantly more than South Korea. So you are just plain factually wrong on this point.
Higher proportion to what? Care to cite any statistics? Or were you just going to make baseless assertions?
China's dependence on exports is not as heavy as may seem at first glance. Officially, exports account for 37 per cent of its revenues and seem to be the driver of the Chinese economy.
But independent surveys by Dragonomics, an advisory firm specializing in China, put its "true" export share at just under 10 per cent of its GDP.
It is internal investments, which account for 40 per cent of its GDP, that are the driving force of China's economy. Although part of them is channeled into export-oriented projects, the global financial crunch will not slow China considerably.
http://sify.com/finance/fullstor...85145&
cid=20742
I've already re-butted this but you refuse to believe it.
Where? Please point to it. You have never even responded to this.
Note, however, with your latest quote on China YOU just rebutted it. China had manufacturing growing much faster than agriculture over the period 1949 to 1976.
??? Just because manufacturing grew faster than agriculture does not mean that ag reform did not fuel this growth. You appear to have some problems with basic reasoning.
Agricultural incomes even stagnated so obviously agriculture didn't provide a market for their increased manufacturing
??? Where did you read this??? What it says is that agricultural production barely kept pace with population increase. But the population absolutely exploded under Mao, so what does that tell you about ag production???
Nowhere does it say anything about agricultural incomes. You just pulled that out of your ass.
The only problem is all the differences are in Venezuelas favor. Venezuela was much more developed to begin with. Venezuela never went through gigantic wars that devestated the country like Vietnam and even to some extent China did.
Vietnam and China both had communist revolutions that erradicated the corrupt comprador regimes, broke the back of the rural oligarchy, and redistributed wealth by force.
Venezuela, on the other hand, is undergoing a more democratic, less coercive process of ag reform and wealth redistribution. There is a big difference.
Also, China has a HUGE advantage with such an enormous domestic market. This is why Latin American integration is advocated by so many.
So Venezuela could be and should be making way more progress but they aren't. Instead, they are still simply a rentist importing country as Ali Rodriguez said yesterday and with industrial production going down, and even staying flat at other times, that isn't going to change anytime soon.
You would have said the same thing about China in the 1950's, and Vietnam in the 1970's and 80's. They didn't appear to be going anywhere, (according to your standards) yet they were carrying out (agricultural-centered) policies that would be crucial to their future development.
That's because you don't understand a thing about the precursors to economic development. I'd suggest you perhaps read something about it?
The only things Venezuela has going for it are oil and OPEC. That is hardly revolutionary.
ow | Homepage | 10.09.09 - 6:08 pm | #
You want to know what is not revolutionary??? Supporting a reformist capitalist China that is building massive wealth for the rich on the back of the worst labor conditions in the world, creating unbelievable inequality and an ecological disaster under the firm grip of a brutal authoritarian regime. You are hardly the person that can be judging others on how "revolutionary" they are.
Hmmm, let's see what the largest contributors to growth are in China, should we?
Investment jumps
He told reporters investment is the largest contributor to the economy, accounting for 41.6 percent of the growth.
In the first three quarters of 2007, fixed asset investment in the country soared 25.7 percent to 9.15 trillion yuan, Li said, adding that investment in properties rose 30.3 percent.
The investing spree was backed by rapid expansion in credit. By the end of September, the total amount of outstanding loans of all financial institutions jumped by 3.36 trillion yuan from the end of 2006, an increase of 642.2 billion yuan over the same period last year, according to Li.
...
Retail sales were another driver of the economy, contributing 37 percent of the GDP growth, the spokesman said.
In the first nine months, the total retail sales of consumer goods in the country reached 6.38 trillion yuan, a year-on-year rise of 15.9 percent - 2.4 percentage points higher than a year earlier, according to the press conference.
"Consumption is expected to keep growing rapidly, becoming an important factor in pushing economic growth," Li said.
...
Export increases
Export, the third engine of the economy, made up for 21.4 percent of the GDP growth, according to Li.
In the first nine months, China exported US$ 878.2 billion worth of products, up by 27.1 percent, while value of imports was $692.6 billion, Li said.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
chi...ent_6206859.htm
Sooooo, let's see here OW. Which contributes more to China's growth??? Domestic consumption or exports??? Let's see if you can figure it out.
China has a higher proportion of exports than Japan and Vietnam has almost the same proportion as Tawain and significantly more than South Korea. So you are just plain factually wrong on this point.
Wait, so you are admitting that China depends LESS on exports than EVERY OTHER ASIAN EXPORT MODEL, except for Japan??? (which is already a developed country, not one currently using an export-led development strategy).
That is exactly what I've been saying all along!!! China is LESS dependent on exports than the rest of the export led economies. Thank you for admitting it finally OW.
Now, did you want to address the rest of my points?
As for Vietnam, they ALSO are less dependent than the other Asian countries that are CURRENTLY carrying out export-led development. South Korea and Taiwan are already developed.
And just to make it explicitly clear what my overall point is here OW:
You implied that China and Vietnam are still growing despite the crisis because they are "export-led economies".
My point is that they are NOT still growing because they are export-led economies, (most of the export-led economies took a huge hit from the crisis) but rather that they are still growing because they are NOT as dependent on exports, and have significant domestic-led growth. And you have basically admitted as much. The very fact that they have carried out stimulus packages shows you that they are relying on DOMESTIC growth right now, not export growth.
And, in fact, both China and Vietnam (and the IMF) have said that the way forward is more balanced growth which depends on more domestic growth. Even the IMF believes that "the growth rate of Asian manufacturing and exports could be structurally lower for many years, and Asia’s export-led growth strategy may no longer pay the same dividends as in the past.
Can you address that? Or will you launch into some irrelevant nonsense about how China is growing rapidly?
I don't know the statistics and I'm having trouble accessing the IMF database, but I wouldn't be surprise if China has a higher percentage of exports as part of their GDP than Japan as Japan is a wealthy, service based economy and also has virtually no raw material to export.
Meanwhile Vietnam is, regardless of progress, is still a very poor country that could outperform Venezuela in growth for a decade before it catches up. In fact the only South American country with a HDI on par with Vietnam is Bolivia, which has been South America's fastest growing economy during the recession...if we are going to play the arbitrary number games, why not bring up Bolivia instead of much less relevant Asian economies? Or if we are going to promote export orientated growth is a flawless solution, why not bring up Chile and Alan Garcia's Peru, the best examples in the region, who have both been hit just as hard (probably harder in the case of Chile) as Venezuela over the past year?
CC, you aren't dealing with stupidity, you are dealing with intellectual dishonesty. This isn't a battle worth fighting, OW might be naively dogmatic, but he's being backed by the likes of Kepler whose intentions should be very clear.
So Vietnam is an example that Venezuela is supposed to follow is it OW? Let's look at one commonly accepted measure of country development, The Human Development Index from the most recent UN Human Development Report. After all, this measures how a country is actually DEVELOPING according to a variety of measures and does not base its assessment on an assumption that growth in GDP automatically means that a country is "developing."
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/
HDR...EN_Complete.pdf
This shows (Table H, Pp. 171) the comparative ranks of all countries in 2007. Hmm...so if Vietnam is to be emulated, and its economic approach has been successful, whether it is "export led" or not, it should have a pretty high HDI. Conversely, since Venezuela has supposedly been failing to achieve the high level of economic growth that you claim is essential to its success, it should not have a high HDI rating, or the rating should at least be not much more than Vietnam's AND should not have advanced much over the years.
VENEZUELAN HDI: Venezuela is in the HIGH HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY and their rating puts them at 58 out of the 182 numerically listed countries. Note that their rate of developmen puts them AHEAD of a number of other Latin American nations such as Peru (7
Brazil (75) Ecuador (80) and other major nations; Turkey (79), etc.
Now I wonder what Vietnam's score is on this index, must be about the same or even higher, right?
WRONG: VIETNAM is in the MEDIUM HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY, and is placed at 116 among the rated nations. Other nations in this same category are Bolivia (113) Honduras (112) Mongolia (115), etc.
But, Vietnam must be moving up rapidly in the index, and Venezuela must be falling, right?
WRONG:
http://www.bt.com.bn/en/
educatio...velopment_index
"The draft pointed out that Vietnamese education has accomplished a number of important goals: increasing the peoples cultural knowledge, training human resources personnel, nurturing talents and developing the educational network to meet the learning demands of 23 million students. Vietnam now has more than 9,000 grassroots-level study centres in 11,000 communes and wards.
Thanks to such achievements, Vietnam's human development index has been raised from the 109th among 174 countries in 2000, to the 105th among 177 countries in 2005."
SO, Vietnam's HDI score has actually FALLEN in recent years. But, Venezuela's must also have fallen, or at least not advanced very much recently, right?
WRONG:
Pp. 167, Venezuela has moved ahead by FOUR places in ONE year, whereas Vietnam has fallen as discussed above. The chart also shows HDI growth rates for each nation. In this, Venezuela's growth rate was relatively low until the 2000-2007 period. It than increased dramatically. On the other hand, Vietnam initially had a very high HDI growth rate, which has fallen substantially in the 2000-2007 period.
Thus, according to this measure and ignoring others, Venezuela seems to be making progress. Hmmm... Maybe VIETNAM should be emulating VENEZUELA, to fix this severe deficiency in its HDI score, rather than the other way around.
Finally, let's see where CHINA is placed on the HDI score, with its countless engineers and scientists, ability to manufacture jet planes and cars, 1.2 billion people, huge exports, multi trillion dollar economy, and 60 year history of development, it must be MUCH higher than Venezuela, in fact with all this GDP growth it should be a developed country already!!!
CHINA HDI 2007: Rank of 92
Well, looks like CHINA has some catching up to do here, rather than the other way around. In fact, since its score is SO MUCH LOWER than Venezuela's I hereby advocate it start to follow Venezuela's development policies!!! This should take care of that HDI deficiency in no time at all. Just do exactly what a country with 26 million people, a much smaller economy, far fewer engineers and scientists, no capacity to manufacture jets, no 50 year history of double digit manufacturing growth, etc, is doing and everything should be all right!!!
Or if we are going to promote export orientated growth is a flawless solution, why not bring up Chile and Alan Garcia's Peru, the best examples in the region, who have both been hit just as hard (probably harder in the case of Chile) as Venezuela over the past year?
Yes, for me this is the whole point. If we look at export-led models in general, they are doing very poorly, and the prospects for a recovery are very poor in the future. World markets have been weak and increasingly protectionist for some time now, and have now just collapsed. (Exactly what I've been saying, quoting experts like Robert Brenner, Walden Bellow, William Hinton, and other leftist economists who have been saying this for years.)
Even the IMF is admitting that the prospects for export-led growth in the future are pretty bleak. Again, if the former champion of export-led growth is now giving up on it, that really says a lot. They are now saying that countries should look more towards domestic-led growth, and China and Vietnam are heeding the call.
However, instead of reevaluating the situation as any honest observer would do, OW prefers to cling on to the couple of remaining not-so-export-dependent export models that are still growing (and whose growth right now is mostly driven by domestic consumption and government stimulus packages), as a way to not let go of his beloved dogma.
The funny thing is that he seems to think he is in a position to tell Venezuela what they should be doing, whereas they have long known that the export model is unsustainable.
Nolan,
You wrote this:
"I wouldn't be surprise if China has a higher percentage of exports as part of their GDP than Japan as Japan is a wealthy, service based economy and also has virtually no raw material to export."
China is not a wealthy nation yet, in spite of all the huge wealth it has generated. Now, tell me, please:
what raw materials are Chinese exporting? I don't see any, unless you think noodles are raw materials.
The salary of Chinese has gone up since the eighties, when they effectively abandoned the path of communism. Venezuelans' salarie as measured by purchasing power and as Ow showed based on National Bank report numbers, has remained just constant since 2002 or 2003 (Ow, what was it?)
The only thing we get here is chris's claims we produce % + of maize and that there are some developments in the making, all simple crap.
Ow, do you remember how Tosh/chris/clueless would tell us about the lorries and cars produced with Iranian technology? He is a bit silent now.
China isn't exporting raw materials, but it has more self-sufficiency in this regard, one of many reasons China is a viable option for manufacturing. Japan outsources most of it's manufacturing today for good reason, there's no point in Japan running an export economy of any type in today's still very neoliberal world.
By the way, Inca Kola has a report about the collapsing currency in Venezuela that you guys have been predicting for years now: http://incakolanews.blogspot.com...allel-
rate.html
What's this, the parallel exchange rate is at the strongest to the dollar that it's been all year? Hmm, maybe you will get it right in 2010!
What's this, the parallel exchange rate is at the strongest to the dollar that it's been all year? Hmm, maybe you will get it right in 2010!They just sold a bunch of bonds to lower it. It didn't drop that much, nor did the bonds go to the people/companies actually needing them (corruption).
Not a whole to celebrate there.
Nolan, read caracas chronicles on it.
How can you call something "strong" when the exchange rate is fixed by the government, using the other rate is actually illegal in Venezuela and the ones profiting from the swap are the initiated?
Well, what the hell...I suppose you were saying the ruble was a very strong currency back in the USSR times...well, it was compared to the joke we have at home. Venezuela is a pressure cooker right now.
fascinating!
things in venezuela are going from bad to worse, political violence included, rampant crime and increased inflation, not to mention corruption, the need to import more and more food, emigration of the best and brightest, relaunching for the nth time of failed barrio adentro, etc, etc.... and the mental masturbation exercice as to whether vietnam or korea or china or chile are better growth examples continues as if nothing.
no es que estan meando fuera del perol, es que ya ni perola tienen en frente
Some news that the Venezuelan government is investing in new and increased MANUFACTURING in a variety of ways;
Source: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/...s.com/news/
4856
First: "a government factory, Venezuelan Telecommuncations, will produce 400,000 cell phones by the end of the year."
Second: "the government plans to invest in the electric and hydrocarbon sectors, provide special subsidies for the production of strategic goods, and improve the efficiency of designating loans for productive activity and for medium and small industry by simplifying procedures and through a new public banking structure."
Third: "in the next FEW WEEKS the government will inaugurate eight factories and is constructing 18 more, most of which are orientated towards fulfilling basic food needs."
Fourth: "The government will also invest a further $1.2 billion in steel and aluminium production."
Fifth: In addition; "Ali Rodriguez, minister for economy and finances, said the government would also look at reforming the Bank and Other Financial Institutions Law in order to guarantee that such institutions assist in the financing of Venezuelan based production. "Financial activity should be directed at ...increasing the production of food and housing, ...electricity infrastructure and so on," Rodriguez said. The government will also adjust its trading policies to encourage more national production."
Sixth: "the government has allocated $2.5 billion out of the foreign currency budget to the auto sector, broken down to $2 billion for assembly of cars and $500 million for finished cars."
DEALING WITH THE EXCHANGE RATE PROBLEM: "As part of strengthening the economy and fighting inflation, the government also decided to create a foreign currency or US dollar budget, announced planning and development minister Jorge Giordani to press on Thursday. This will help the private sector plan its resources in terms of investment and foreign currency, he said. Payments of US dollars, where the government supplies companies and travellers with US dollars at the official rate, a rate much better than the unofficial black market rate, "has been stabilising, as has the price of petroleum," said Chacon, adding that allocation of US dollars will be based on who or which company "adds the most value" to the economy."
This shows that, contrary to statements made by others on this blog, Venezuela IS investing a substantial amount in manufacturing AND has a plan to continue to do this in the future.
You obviously don't read this blog a lot. You should go over OW's analysis of the "fábricas socialistas" and numerous other entreprenurial endeavours that have crashed and burned in Venezuela due to mismanagment and/or corruption.
"Will... Is going to... Plans... Intends..." aren't really the verb forms you want to quote in order to "prove" anything.
It's really nice how you use all that sweet talk about "context" and "history" when talking about China and completely ignore the exact same factors when an analysis of Venezuela is due.
Make no mistake, fixing exchange rates is a dangerous game and inflation is a serious problem in Venezuela for all classes. Even Chavez supporters have been pressuring the government from the left for reform, I don't think anyone will deny that the ongoing global financial crisis is hitting Venezuela. However the upcoming collapse remains an assumption, even if Caracas Chronicles is being honest about government deception, if things were as grim as you all are hoping then we would all know, just as we know that the Argentine and Peruvian governments have been lying about their economic situation.
Nolan, Venezuela's crisis does not have much to do with the world crisis but for the oil price drop...which show the revolution is nothing but the crumbles from the biggest oil boom Venezuela ever had....the crumbles as most of the dosh was stolen by people like Arne chacon and many other high ranking officials...or just spent away by the main whiskye consuming nation, the main users of silicon transplants and the Hummer fans
That freaking Quico is bad mouthing Veniran... Tosh, prove the bastard wrong, please!!!
Oh God. I guess I'll have to wade through this tomorrow
You're all so full of shit!!! But OW is the worst!!!
OW, are you the same bloke who's all over the internet...the guy that works in a hospital in New York city?? Daniel B...something is your name, isn't it? ha ha ha Even a pathetic name you've got!!!
Commenting by HaloScan
