|
Conspiratiorist posted:That's a fair sentiment, but you don't get to use it to weasel out of the actual point, Mr. "Please do something, anything." They’re Maduro’s fault. We were never sanctioned under Chavez, matter of fact we were never sanctioned during 4 years of crisis, Maduro’s actions, including his disastrous management of the economy and of state assets put him in a position where he was selling bonds to loving Goldman Sachs before the sanctions. Did you all forget about that? Before any sanctions were in place Venezuela had already defaulted. Of course they don’t help. But Maduro tripling down on disastrous policy sure as gently caress doesn’t mitigate the effect of sanctions. Sanctions or not the collapse was already underway, people were eating trash maybe 5 blocks away from Miraflores before I left, this had never occurred in the 30 years prior.
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
fnox posted:They’re Maduro’s fault. We were never sanctioned under Chavez, Sanctions started in 2008, try again
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Sanctions started in 2008, try again Are you seriously loving saying that Venezuelan officials being linked to international drug trade has anything to do with food shortages? Because god drat that’s a bold statement. Up until 2017 all sanctions targeted specific individuals. You can see how those individuals sanctions didn’t affect the Venezuelan economy, because the Venezuelan economy boomed in 2009. Conversely, the negative trend correlated almost immediately with Maduro taking power. Inflation spirals out of control almost the second he takes power. You are aware that one of the people sanctioned in 2008, Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal not only supports Guaido (lol), he admitted that he and other generals under Chavez funded the FARC and participated in the drug trade? This isn’t really a secret. fnox fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Jun 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
fnox posted:Are you seriously loving saying that Venezuelan officials being linked to international drug trade has anything to do with food shortages? Because god drat that’s a bold statement. Up until 2017 all sanctions targeted specific individuals. Again, no: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Again, no: Are you being intentionally obtuse? The upper bound of that graph is the beginning of hyperinflation, if you extend it to today it looks like it starts flat and becomes exponential, but that’s just because inflation is currently in the millions.  If you plot inflation from 2006 to 2012 it looks like this  All you did was prove that Venezuela’s problems began with Maduro, because there are no other sanctions until 2015.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
fnox posted:
Generally speaking an inflationary crisis doesn't just happen overnight because one man from the same ruling party as the last President takes power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Evidence on just how awful maduro is !!
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Generally speaking an inflationary crisis doesn't just happen overnight because one man from the same ruling party as the last President takes power. It didn’t happen overnight  It quadrupled within 2 years and became one of the highest inflation rates in the world. It then continued to spiral wildly out of control until today where it is literally record numbers. Are you people finding out about this today or what? To note:  This is the inflation rate during the worst of the Fourth Republic.  This is the inflation rate during 12 years of Chavez.  This is the inflation rate during 2 years of Maduro. This is before any sanctions, by the way, just from January 2013 to December 2014. The poverty rate doubled within that period before they stopped reporting on it. GDP growth stopped. I can find you every economic marker that you want, it will tell the same story. fnox fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jun 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Everybody knows Venezuela didn't exist until this year. I mean, if it existed, they would've posted about it in this thread before then, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
I posted, on another account, in some ancient predecessor of this thread where we all bitched about the particular genre of op-eds where some jackass looks at a graph and determines that democracy in the US should be abolished because [country] number strong. It is my opinion that Venezuela,
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
fnox posted:Are you being intentionally obtuse? The upper bound of that graph is the beginning of hyperinflation, if you extend it to today it looks like it starts flat and becomes exponential, but that’s just because inflation is currently in the millions. So, it's absolutely, demonstratably false inflation shot up immediately after Maduro became president in 2013, as you said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:So, it's absolutely, demonstratably false inflation shot up immediately after Maduro became president in 2013, as you said. What the gently caress are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:25
|
|
|
fnox posted:I want Maduro to step down so that he doesn’t trigger an invasion, and so that we can start working out how to get rid of all these foreign influences he brought in. This might be a self-resolving issue as China and Russia leave since there is nothing more to loot. Pro-tier anti-imperialism politics imho https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1135202112168763393
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Somaen posted:This might be a self-resolving issue as China and Russia leave since there is nothing more to loot. Pro-tier anti-imperialism politics imho can u copy paste the text because like gently caress am i subscribing to the wsj
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
fnox posted:
Hmm, yes, obviously Maduro is responsible for the rise in inflation rates that started nearly half a year before he became president. Buddy, for all the crazy things you're making that chart do I hope you bought it dinner first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Squalid posted:can u copy paste the text because like gently caress am i subscribing to the wsj The country under crippling sanctions who's foreign reserves have been stolen by the west choose not to renew a bunch of military contracts. This is somehow a sign that russia doesn't support it and not, you know, how buying things works. quote:MOSCOW—Russia has withdrawn key defense advisers from Venezuela, an embarrassment for President Nicolás Maduro as Moscow weighs the leader’s political and economic resilience against growing U.S. pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Hmm, yes, obviously Maduro is responsible for the rise in inflation rates that started nearly half a year before he became president. He's been acting president since December 2012 when he was appointed vice president by Chavez before he left to Cuba for treatment. What rise in inflation rates? What the gently caress are you talking about? Inflation went down from 2011 to 2012, then went up again from 2012-2013, then up 2013-2014, and then skyrocketed ever since. What else could cause that other than Maduro? Do you believe that Maduro's policy is not to blame for Venezuela's economic downfall?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
fnox posted:Do you believe that Maduro's policy is not to blame for Venezuela's economic downfall? Nope, it's pretty clearly the fall of oil prices and US sanctions. There was an article on it somewhere back in the thread that laid in our but I can't find it. What in US history makes you think US involvement would be good? Also, explain how you think Maduro's policies side from Chavez's.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
I don't know whats more embarrassing, the fact the opposition couldn't afford hotel rooms for its rebels in Colombia or that the government couldn't afford to keep the Russian contractors in country. Or maybe it just says something about the fact the whole country is broke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
zapplez posted:I don't know whats more embarrassing, the fact the opposition couldn't afford hotel rooms for its rebels in Colombia or that the government couldn't afford to keep the Russian contractors in country. I'd say it was when they bought multiple accounts so they could argue with themselves about gun control in the D&D USPOL thread. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Nope, it's pretty clearly the fall of oil prices and US sanctions. There was an article on it somewhere back in the thread that laid in our but I can't find it. See, I knew you would say that. I knew that you would realise that you really put yourself in a corner by linking to the inflation rate, so you would go to oil prices.  The problem is, oil prices crashed on September 2014. Before that, they were at an all time high of over $100 to the barrel. Again, lets look at inflation Inflation went from 20% to 60% while the price of crude was over $100. There were no US sanctions during that time. How can you explain this? Maduro's policies are nonsensical compared to Chavez. I don't agree with many of the things Chavez did with the economy and I believe many of his decisions triggered the downfall, but he never went as far as to deny the existence of inflation or of a crisis like Maduro did. I can break it down further but now I'd really like to know how you can explain why things started to go sour so quickly under Maduro without recurring to buzzwords.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
fnox posted:See, I knew you would say that. I knew that you would realise that you really put yourself in a corner by linking to the inflation rate, so you would go to oil prices. You brought up interest rates. I just did the homework after. Also we've been over this, sanctions have been around since 2008.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:You brought up interest rates. I just did the homework after. You didn't do the homework. You literally didn't, you made poo poo up and it's obvious when you look at the data. You literally said that inflation didn't immediately increase under Maduro, yet the graph shows inflation immediately increasing since the beginning of 2013 and then never going back down. Are you intentionally just saying "sanctions" so that you can somehow equate the economic effect of freezing the US assets of Hugo "El Pollo" Carvajal, Henry Rangel Silva and Ramon Rodriguez Chacin (all of which are military men that had nothing to do with the economy), and Executive Order 13808 which prohibits the Venezuelan government from accessing US financial markets? Because they're very obviously not the same kind of sanction. This is demonstrated by the chart I posted earlier about inflation under Chavez, where inflation goes down immediately after that sanction in 2008 was enacted. That doesn't mean "sanctions lower inflation" of course, the entire point is that these individual sanctions had a negligible effect in the economy, compared perhaps to what came much later. Why are you contorting yourself so badly over this? What's the alternative here? That Maduro was executing sound economic policy and had ALL of his efforts ruined by the US?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
The entire "sanctions on individuals don't count" argument is incredibly specious because it's obvious that the overall effect is to dissuade trade on a much greater level than just the individuals being sanctioned. It's seen (rightly) as a precursor to further sanctions and greatly increases risk of investment in a nation where important figures are being sanctioned by an empire that is clearly posturing for regime change. It signals the first step, it's a shot across the bow and pretending it has no other effect other than that one person can't do business with US companies is obtuse as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
THS posted:The entire "sanctions on individuals don't count" argument is incredibly specious because it's obvious that the overall effect is to dissuade trade on a much greater level than just the individuals being sanctioned. Yet it didn't. The sanction that he's specifically referring to did not have any perceptible repercussions in the economy. Again, the Venezuelan economy was booming not very long after that. Decline started directly with Maduro. The numbers just don't back what you're saying here. A more important event occurred during the time that sanction was enacted, the stock market crash of 2008. Venezuela attained recovery by 2011, and had positive GDP growth, immediately until the point where Maduro took power. Then it took a nosedive.  There's no conjecture here. These sanctions in 2008 that he's referring to had a negligible economic effect. By every metric. Compare that to how every economic indicator started a downward trend in 2013.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
fnox posted:You didn't do the homework. You literally didn't, you made poo poo up and it's obvious when you look at the data. You literally said that inflation didn't immediately increase under Maduro, yet the graph shows inflation immediately increasing since the beginning of 2013 and then never going back down. You're literally arguing Maduro somehow immediately caused inflation to rise the second he took power after Chavez, while implementing the exact same policies. You can't even articulate a single definable difference between their policies. Maduro inherited lovely oil prices, an egomaniacal Lopez who was convinced he could usurp power, and a US administration chomping at the bit for the chance to flip Venezuela back to the "western puppet state" column.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 23:43
|
|
|
fnox posted:Yet it didn't. The sanction that he's specifically referring to did not have any perceptible repercussions in the economy. Again, the Venezuelan economy was booming not very long after that. Decline started directly with Maduro. The effects of 'light' sanctions intended to dissuade investment over time wouldn't have an immediate effect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:You're literally arguing Maduro somehow immediately caused inflation to rise the second he took power after Chavez, while implementing the exact same policies. You can't even articulate a single definable difference between their policies. You're ignoring hard data now to pivot back to familiar territory. Sick. We'll get back to that. How the gently caress did Maduro inherit lovely oil prices when he took power when the barrel was at over $100?! He even arrested Lopez, which Chavez couldn't do. His policies weren't exactly the same and that's the entire problem, the fact that you're even saying that shows how little you actually know about what Maduro has done. But ok, here's a list of things that I believe Maduro shouldn't have done: 1) Shouldn't have enacted the Organic Law of Fair Prices, which directly triggered food shortages and job loss, because price controls don't work during hyperinflation. By far one of the most atrocious actions made by Maduro, and one of the earliest taken. 2) Shouldn't have doubled down on currency controls, creating multiple tiers of currency exchange which exacerbated capital loss and corruption. Maduro saw the problems in CADIVI, an invention of Chavez, and then made it worse as opposed to abolishing it. 3) Shouldn't have started printing money to fix a bad fiscal policy. 4) Shouldn't have handed PDVSA to the military. 5) Shouldn't have spent so much cash on the military while an economic crisis was underway. 6) Shouldn't have commited to paying American debtors, postponing defaults by only a couple of years, while the economy was in shambles, when the money could've been used to loving feed people. 7) Shouldn't have consistently forced stores to sell at discounts during Christmas, causing businesses to go under. 8) Shouldn't have continued the petrol subsidies without locking them to inflation, causing a massive budget deficit. 9) Shouldn't have attacked private industry that existed under Chavez, resulting in over 50% of businesses existing in Venezuela since 2001 shutting down by 2015. I can come up with more. These are specifically Maduro actions. You would really have to be a complete moron to think that Maduro is a continuation of Chavez. THS posted:The effects of 'light' sanctions intended to dissuade investment over time wouldn't have an immediate effect. It didn't have one years later either. At least not compared to the very obvious effect that the deadly combination of price controls, currency controls and runaway inflation has. Occam's razor, what is the simplest explanation? That sanctioning 3 people caused the economy to tank 5 years later, or that the economy tanked immediately after the adoption of bad policies? fnox fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
fnox posted:
Uh what do you think an America-approved presidente is going to do
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
THS posted:The entire "sanctions on individuals don't count" argument is incredibly specious because it's obvious that the overall effect is to dissuade trade on a much greater level than just the individuals being sanctioned. You know I've heard this argument several times, but I'm really curious where it came from, and what evidence supports it. I assume you didn't arrive at this conclusion by yourself, through the application of pure reason. That would be extremely silly, of course we can't rely on common sense to understand complex macroeconomic processes. So where did you read this first? I'd like to trace this idea back to its origin, presumably most of the people who use this argument got it from one or a few thinkers. Of course my interest in seeing the origin is to discover if it is an idea supported by observation and evidence, if the effect of sanctions on individuals is something presumed based on theoretical knowledge of how finance functions, or if it has no support at all, and this is simply a matter of rhetoric. There's a few legitimate pieces of evidence we could use to support the asserting that "the overall effect [of individual sanctions] is to dissuade trade on a much greater level than just the individuals being sanctioned." 1) Statements by US officials or agencies responsible for the sanctions saying this is an intended effect. 2) Statements or memos by lenders saying their decisions were influenced by individual sanctions. 3) Statements by Venezuelan officials saying their borrowing has been hindered by individual sanctions. 4) An economic analysis of interest rates before and after the application of sanctions. 5) Any of the previous kinds of evidence, but regarding sanctions applied to individuals in some other country and some other time. Do we have any such evidence that sanctions effected Venezuelan borrowing? As far as I know, no such evidence has ever been shared in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
Politics is a feeling, buddy. My conclusions are drawn from the study of history and the intentions of the United States, and not taking the actions of the United States as if it were acting in good faith. The United States has proven through constant meddling and even an outright coup that it will always try to overthrow an unfriendly government in Venezuela, so why assume that sanctions of any kind aren’t done with the intention of weakening the Venezuela state? I do think it’s amusing that you think everyone is getting marching orders from some central source, as if “being cynical about US foreign policy” were a stance that took a lot of creativity. You want access to stuff I don’t have, like some secret CIA memo stating that they are doing the bad thing to hurt the Venezuelans - as if that’s the standard of evidence we need to make broad generalizations about current affairs. Maybe in academia that’s the case, but you’d rather wait until some declassified document is released decades from now. It’s better to be prejudiced against the intentions of a state that has historically been so consistently evil and full of poo poo - but there’s the leap you’ll never take, because you don’t immediately assume the worst about the Demon Nation that is the United States. Squalid, the disagreement is political, deeply seated, and can’t be reconciled. Maybe some wonk can come in and make a more logical argument than me, though. Mine is more of an ethical argument, that the US is hosed to hell and everything it does in Latin America is surely also completely hosed. Death to America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 04:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh what do you think an America-approved presidente is going to do Create demand for oubliettes, abbatoirs, and snitch priests who hide behind their holy order's reputation. "Hey, South Korea got billions every time they threatened to start WW3, let's do that!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
THS, I'm not sure why you think the US government would conceal the fact that it intended to increase Venezuelan borrowing costs. One of the nice things about mainstream ideological hegemony is it makes the government more transparent. When John Bolton appears on Fox news he is entirely open about the purpose of the latest round of sanctions and the US strategy in Venezuela. It is to destabilize the economy through sanctions (necessarily harming Venezuelans in the process), to foment a military coup against Maduro, and install a new government led by Guiado. They are also explicit that they view defeating socialism as a goal and part of this project. They are completely transparent about these intentions because they view this as the just and right course of action, and are confident that they will not be challenged by US media. In this context it does not make sense that they would lie about their intentions with previous sanctions, especially on as esoteric an issue as interest rates. I admit I am suspicious that this effect occurred mainly because when I was reviewing financial news coverage of Venezuela, they never came up in discussions of lending and interest rates. That doesn't prove there was no effect, but it is odd that if there was one, it would not be of interest to speculators. I understand why you want to make this argument. At times it can seem instrumental to defend Maduro's economic record. I believe your primary motivation is to make an argument against US military intervention. From a certain perspective, bad economic performance might seem like a justification for military intervention, even if this conclusion does not logically follow. Ultimately though I don't think this argumentative style is necessary. You can make a perfectly cogent argument just using real things, that you really know. You don't have to make weird assumptions, or talk yourself into indefensible positions. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the disagreement is political. Whether or not individual sanctions on Venezuelans effected government interest rates in 2008 is not a political question. It is a yes/no/maybe question. Presumably, it could be answered with relatively simple math if one had the right statistics available. If you are going to make that which is or isn't political, well that is a dangerous path to tread. Personally, I feel I don't have to make up false and insulting stories about the Nazis to know they were bad, the real history is proof enough. Why would we need any thing else? Squalid fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Squalid posted:In this context it does not make sense that they would lie about their intentions with previous sanctions, especially on as esoteric an issue as interest rates. I admit I am suspicious that this effect occurred mainly because when I was reviewing financial news coverage of Venezuela, they never came up in discussions of lending and interest rates. That doesn't prove there was no effect, but it is odd that if there was one, it would not be of interest to speculators. Considering that the administration that implemented the previous sanctions was the loving Obama administration, this absolutely doesn't follow. gently caress, "engaging in the worst excesses of imperialism but this time only against the bad guys who deserve it" describes obama to a loving t
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
Squalid posted:THS, I'm not sure why you think the US government would conceal the fact that it intended to increase Venezuelan borrowing costs. One of the nice things about mainstream ideological hegemony is it makes the government more transparent. When John Bolton appears on Fox news he is entirely open about the purpose of the latest round of sanctions and the US strategy in Venezuela. It is to destabilize the economy through sanctions (necessarily harming Venezuelans in the process), to foment a military coup against Maduro, and install a new government led by Guiado. They are also explicit that they view defeating socialism as a goal and part of this project. They are completely transparent about these intentions because they view this as the just and right course of action, and are confident that they will not be challenged by US media. In 2008 the Obama administration’s foreign policy was less overt in their bullshit than Trump’s. As to why the sanctions didn’t have much immediate effect, perhaps it was just an ineffectual move at the time. After all they tripped over their own dicks into a contradictory whirlwind of half measures and overreaches over an 8 year period. Regardless, if you think the intentions were that the US just genuinely wants to sanction bad guys and stop Crimes, considering who we do business with elsewhere in the world, then lol. It’s clear that it’s a signal that doing business with Venezuela is a bad proposition in the long term if the US is sanctioning powerful people in the Venezuelan state, and we’re aware that’s the effect when we do it, how it will be interpreted, and I think our interests are utterly cynical. THS fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table”
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Considering that the administration that implemented the previous sanctions was the loving Obama administration, this absolutely doesn't follow. gently caress, "engaging in the worst excesses of imperialism but this time only against the bad guys who deserve it" describes obama to a loving t I'm not sure I understand the substance of this post, but I think I get the spirit. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you saying that although the Trump administration is bare faced and upfront about its intentions in Venezuela, we should expect statements from the Obama administration to have been more circumspect and less direct. Is that a correct characterization? If I am wrong, please correct me. I'm not sure I agree. For one thing, sanctions against Venezuelan politicians were justified by the Obama admin on the basis of national security, which is obviously nonsensical and political in nature. They didn't need specific meaningful justifications. More relevant to the question on hand; that is did Obama sanctions on individual Venezuelans influence the interest rates on national debt, looking at contemporary articles nobody even seems to consider this question. For instance, see this example from April 9, 2015: https://africasacountry.com/2015/04/the-consequences-of-obamas-sanctions-against-venezuela The issue of interest rates is never raised. I can find no mention in contemporary sources. At this point I think it is likely the theory that individual sanctions effect interest rates probably arose within the last year, and is not based on observation or economic theory. I seems to be a rhetorical instrument used to defend Maduro's economic record by pushing the blame for problems onto the United States. The idea was probably not the conscious product of a propaganda organ. Most likely it emerged as a sort of common sense explanation, that was then magnified through repetition. Its a piece of folk wisdom without basis in materialist analysis. THS posted:In 2008 the Obama administration’s foreign policy was less overt in their bullshit than Trump’s. As to why the sanctions didn’t have much immediate effect, perhaps it was just an ineffectual move at the time. After all they tripped over their own dicks into a contradictory whirlwind of half measures and overreaches over an 8 year period. Regardless, if you think the intentions were that the US just genuinely wants to sanction bad guys and stop Crimes, considering who we do business with elsewhere in the world, then lol. I don't think stopping crimes was the intention of the US at all. If it was, the US would have sanctioned Dési Bouterse, President of Suriname, who was convicted in absentia of trafficking cocaine to the Netherlands. Clearly, it was political. I don't know why you think the signal is clear however. It doesn't appear to have been clear at the time, for example it goes unmentioned in this article: https://theintercept.com/2015/03/11/maybe-obamas-sanctions-venezuela-really-deep-concern-human-rights-abuses/ I have a hard time finding it mentioned anywhere in fact, which would be surprising if it really were obvious, I think. Squalid fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table” A fair summary of your tactics "President" Guaido but please stop posting on SA, you have a "legitimate government" to run  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
Look, guy, you can hate America as much as you want, I don't think it can be argued that American influence in Latin American politics has been mostly disastrous, there's plenty of examples of this. But what you're saying is that Maduro had no hand whatsoever in the economic collapse of the country he had absolute power over. This is an insane statement. This means that the president of an oil rich country has no agency whatsoever in the future of their country, it's all America calling the shots. We might as well not have a president. God only knows then how Chavez managed to not collapse the country when he said that George W Bush was the literal devil in his UN address. The problem with you mixing economics and feelings is that the feelings of economics are quantifiable. America did eventually prevent US citizens and companies from engaging in business with Venezuela, but that's in 2017, and immediately before that sanction was enacted, the financial markets were eager to buy PDVSA issued bonds. The reason being that they were dirt cheap. Goldman Sachs bought around $2.8bn worth of bonds. They got paid, by the way, in 2018. The sanctions excluded them and the Venezuelan government committed to paying them. As for interests rates and onerous lending, this can also be quantified. There's the equivalent of a credit check but for countries, called a credit rating. This pretty much does what you're saying, it's a measure of "should I invest in these people or not", and this is public, this is what private firms use to determine risk when investing in a country.  As you can see, the sanctioning of those 3 individuals in 2008 had little effect on credit rating, matter of fact, Moody's said their outlook was positive a week after it happened. Conversely, a year of Maduro immediately led to credit rating changes, with most credit agencies agreeing that the future economic outlook of the country was dire. This is, again, before any other sanctions were enacted. It's all Maduro's doing. I really can't believe that you don't blame Maduro in the slightest for the crisis. I really can't. I can't see how you can ignore any endemic sign of crisis occurring. Our world views can't be that far apart. VitalSigns posted:Uh what do you think an America-approved presidente is going to do Pay them back, just not right now. Default, prioritize ending the economic crisis first, then restructure the debt. This is not exactly unheard of in world politics, but it is an admission of having hosed up, which is why Maduro instead committed to continue paying the debt he could pay, and just delayed payment whenever he was forced to. The US financial system was repeatedly shocked by Maduro's commitment to honour its payments. In doing this Maduro just committed to give very wealthy people a lot of money as they bought up bonds at a bargain. While the country starved. fnox fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Jun 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Maduro absolutely had a hand in everything happening in Venezuela since at least 2012, nobody's denying that. Cuba's been in a worse situation for longer and they managed to survive, so obviously if Maduro's goons ran their poo poo competently, they would have probably avoided at least the mass starvation. But then, we're again at the point where either it's a US puppet regime, or a full revolution and a complete replacement of the market economy that evidently can't work in a state that's being waged economic warfare on by the imperialist superpowers. The way I see it, mass starvation under Maduro could have only been avoided by expropriating land and start farming on now state owned land. And Venezuela has a fuckton of land where agriculture works real well for now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2019 10:52
|
|
