The social democrats I was writing about were in Venezuela (the policy of their candidate). You might have guessed that I was writing about Venezuela because of the word “Venezuela” in the title of the post (and in the post, and in the comments).

On economics I am (although not all libertarians are) an Austrian school man – start with Lugwig Von Mises “Human Action” and go on from there (you might try the Ludwig Von Mises institute website for information).

As for the G8 – well I see no point in these expensive meetings.

I also support getting rid of the I.M.F. and the World Bank.

Doubtless you say you are against the actions of the I.M.F. and World Bank – but would you get rid of them, or would you just prefer to be in charge of ripping off the taxpayers and giving orders to various places?

Neoliberalism is certainly not for the US which adopts huge deficit financing and makes massive subsidises to industry to gain competitive advantage.

The minimum wage is fuck-all, and any rise above inflation will, even using gross exageration, make it
almost practically fuck-all.

Fattening the Health and education services for privitisation: yes that’s neoliberalism.

Oil revenues! The UK blew them a decade ago. We are actually net importers of oil now.

Which social democratic government are you fantasising about Paul Marks?

Yes the Americans did demand that Chevez not be harmed. They did a similar thing with Norega (sorry for my spelling) in Panama. There was coup the Americans made vague noises, but did not give any practical support for the coup – and demanded (or so I have been told) that Norega not be killed. And so he was soon back in power. So the Americans had to act themselves (later) because they had prevented local people doing the job.

Actually Chevez and Norega (old “pineapple head”) look very similar, they might almost be twins.

However, Norega never made speeches denouncing the concept of money (suggesting that a combination of state direction and barter would be a better system) and claiming that collective ownership of land (which Chevez is under impression was the practice in preColumbian times) would work better than private ownership. Even if there was collective ownership of land in preColumbian times the population is rather bigger these days and the ecomomy (including farming) is a much more complicated undertaking.

Chevez is a nut, and the people who voted for him are going to starve (as soon as the oil money starts running down).

As H.L.M. used to say “Democracy is the system by which people get to ask for what they want and they deserve to get it – good and hard”.

I dont give two fucks who the people of Venezuela elect as their leader, but please try and keep in touch with reality or the planet is doomed.

If this sort of bullshit is making you some money then I understand and excuse my rant, but if it’s not – bless us and save us.

It’s simple. A nobrainer really. Chavez has shown some hostility towards neoliberalism. This is beyond the pail, hence the threat of coups, assassination , and propagandising that he is a corupt devil & dictator.

Of course this is complete bullshit.
Neoliberals and their more irrational fascist sect of neoconservatives believe Chavez is limiting their ability to make profits in Venezuela. This is sufficient to be vilified and made an official enemy of the US.

Governments that use significant amounts of their income to help their less well off citizens have traditionally been made enemies of the US and either attacked directly or indirectly.

The greatest fear of the US and other neoliberal elites is for an economy hostile to neoliberalism to succeed. So lets be prepared for all sorts of bullshit and tantrums from the neoliberals about Chavez being the devil incarnate. You get a sense of it from the contributors to this site, who are not elites, just deluded middle -class freeloaders who shit themselves about themselves that they or their kids might have to do hard work to earn a living, and need an enslaved and impoverished class to do it for them, and provide them with all the crap they must have for their meaningless consumer binging lives.

So cut the bullshit its boring, no one is
listening including the population of venezuela.

Hopefully Iraq has so fucked up US agression and shown it to be what it really is that invading or sponsoring a coup in Venezuela is just not possible anymore. But I wouldn’t put it past the fascists that have immerged under Bush to lead the US. Fascists are irational.

Note: “nutjob” is a word only complete chumps would use.

What struck me was that up until the failed coup, the world’s media was disturbed by Chavez for trying to pack the courts, changing the makeup of the legislature, and other things problematic for human rights; but as soon as Chavez came out against the Bush administration after returning to power, the media have been in suckup mode to Chavez.

(Apologies if this comment appears twice; Movable Type gave me an error message the first time I hit “Post”.)

Whether a coup is a good or a bad idea in theory, it is not practical. President Bush has nailed his colours to the democracy mast.

That is what the “neo cons” are really about, they are not all big spending social democrats (although I admit that most of them are), but they are all pro democracy – and so is President Bush.

And one can not be pro democracy and support coups against democratically elected governments.

As for “people support Chevez because of the spending”.

There has been plenty of government spending in Venezula since that Free Mason Blanco was President back in the 19th century.

True (with the new oil money) President Gomez paid off the national debt back in the 1920′s – but later Presidents (both military, and after 1958, civilian) spent lots of money.

In fact Chevez has most likely spent LESS on the poor than the social democrats would have done – because he has spent vast sums on his overseas adventures (O.K. so has President Bush) and his regime is actually much more corrupt than the social democrats (and he is vastly more corrupt than any “neo con”).

The majority of voters are not stupid – they know that they would actually (if anything) have seen more of the oil money with the social democrats in charge than they have seen with Chevez in charge.

But what they would not have seen is the well off people scared (very scared). Sorry but it is possible for the majority of voters in a country to be nasty (i.e. to want to make other people’s lives very unpleasant – even if this in no way benefits themselves).

“But if they drive the rich away the general population will suffer – especially when the oil money begins to drop”.

Yes they will suffer, and here I would accept they have made a “mistake” because I do not think they know they will suffer, they do not think their suffering can get any worse than it is already – but it can.

Chavez isn’t the same as the old school nut-jobs like Castro and the Dear (now upgraded to Great) leader. He’s more like Admadasahatter in Iran, he’s media-savvy.

The same could be said for any communist, socialist or redistributionist candidate, anywhere. It is this destructiive envy that makes me despair of human nature; why won’t they see that we could all get richer and that would be better than trying to make us all equally poor?