(11)

Here is a long and good article about the destruction of the economy of Venezuela by Hugo Chavez, the president who recently attempted - unsuccessfuly, thank goodness - to get himself voted president for life. I know I am preaching to the coverted around here by pointing out the sheer folly of what this thug is attempting, but sometimes you have to keep pointing to such examples lest people in other parts of the world forget just what a disaster state central planning is.

It never fails to strike me how such a resource-rich nation like Venezuela can be ruined by a political operator like Chavez, and contrast that with how a small colony, with hardly any resources at all apart from sheer entrepreneurial spirit, like Hong Kong, can rise to be one of the richest places on the planet.

For a great guide to some of the key drivers of wealth in countries down the ages, this classic by David Landes is greatly recommended.

(5)

Last week, as I was wandering around a slightly shabby (but brightly coloured) neighbourhood of Santiago, I encountered the following restaurant, which was sadly closed at the time of day I visited.

It is likely that if a restaurant put up such a sign in Britain or America, it would soon receive a cease and desist letter from DC Comics or some other branch of Time Warner. However, despite the fact that the Chileans were undoubtedly required to enact some ghastly DMCA-like concoction as a consequence of the negotiations that led to the United States / Chile Free Trade Agreement, enforcement is somewhat laxer than it would be in Europe or North America.

This is, in my opinion, a good thing. If such a sign were taken down, there would be no consideration of the most important question related to it, which is What in the name of Apocatequil were these people smoking?

(48)

... to be in government. Making the country a 'better place' comes a distant second.

Alex Singleton (of this parish) has an article up on Brassneck titled Hugo Chavez is blinded by ideology. He points out the foolishness of Hugo Chavez's 'concerns' about a small British owned cocoa estate in Venezuela, given that a nationalised estate is highly unlikely to be able to reproduce the alleged high quality of Willie Harcourt-Cooze's operation.

But that presupposes that Hugo Chavez gives a damn about the economic consequences of his actions. I think he is far from 'blind' to the implication of his policies, more likely he simply does not see them as particularly relevant to politics... and everything Chavez does is about politics. The only real reason that a small British owned operation would attract the attention of someone like 'El Duce' is he sees political benefit in being seen to move against a 'foreign' business, never mind how many locals it employs or what local goods and services the business uses. It is important to remember that his power base is motivated primarily by envy and not by their own wealth directly, or lack thereof.

In other words, the sort of people in Venezuela who support a demagogic national socialist like Chavez would react well to sticking it to a Brit and the net economic weal of the nation has very little to do with it. Chavez is the government and getting people to support the government is all that matters to a creature like him. And as that is what his supporters want, if such an approach writ large destroys the Venezuelan economy, people are only getting exactly what they voted for. Personally I think his supporters deserve every day they live in abject poverty, something that will continue for the foreseeable future under their government of choice... pity about the rest however.

(17)

Granted I am somewhat indifferent to democracy, seeing it as nothing more than a tool for securing limited government (at best) or a mechanism for legitimising proxy theft (at worst), but as so many leftists make such a song and dance about the importance of democracy, it is remarkable to see people like Mexican Hugo Chavez wannabe Lopez Obrador casting it aside when he does not like the way it is headed. His supporters simply seized control of the chambers of both houses of Congress back on 10th April so that they could block government proposals to ease restrictions on private investment in the state oil industry. Obrador does not like the fact he cannot democratically get the results he wants, so he just stops debate on the subject in congress completely. Fair enough. If I was the Mexican government, I would just start ruling by edict until the democratic institutions become functional again, or failing that, just send in the riot cops with instructions to bust some heads to remove some political trespassers.

People opposed to Obrador have made a very effective advertisement likening him to sundry totalitarian thugs. However Obrador has demanded this advertisement be ordered off the air by Mexico's federal electoral authority, indicating as well as disliking democratic processes he cannot control, he also does not believe in freedom of expression. Quelle surprise.

Well due to the magic of the internet... here it is.

Cool.

(37)

Here's this gem from Reuters:

Cuba seeks more user-friendly socialism

There is something almost pathetic about the following paragraph from Reuters, as if the ability of people to trade with one another is some sort of wonderful present given by Father Christmas, rather than an extension of the basic right of every human to sustain life and flourish happily:

Bans on the sale of computers, DVD players and other products have been lifted, and Cubans who can afford it can now stay at tourist hotels and buy a cellphone.

Agriculture is being decentralized, farmers can decide for themselves what supplies they need and the prices paid to them are rising to boost food production.

Seriously, these steps represent real progress. If the reforms are real, it clearly makes sense for the US and other countries to lift sanctions against the country. A sharp dose of free trade should put a stake in the heart of the failed Marxist experiment in that island for good.

Meanwhile, let's hope sanity eventually returns across the Atlantic in Zimbabwe. Surely, one of the great lessons of the 20th century, continuing to this day in Cuba, Zimbabwe or for that matter, Venezuela, is that state central planning is a disaster, whether applied to agriculture or anything else.

(15)

Fungible: Etymology: New Latin fungibilis, from Latin fungi to perform
: being something (as money or a commodity) one part or quantity of which can be substituted for another of equal value in paying a debt or settling an account - oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities.

Hugo Chavez, the paleo-socialist who is working tirelessly to turn Caracas into Pyongyang, has threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States due to actions brought against the Venezuelan government in British, Dutch and US courts by ExxonMobil. Following the freezing of $12 billion in assets by a British court, Chavez said:

"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello, President." "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments to the United States, which is Venezuela's No. 1 client, if Washington tries to oust him. Chavez's warnings on Sunday appeared to extend that threat to attempts by oil companies to challenge his government's nationalization drive through lawsuits.

And your word for the day, Mister Chavez, is 'fungible'.

If his intention is to sell Venezuelan oil to no one, he will push up the price to everyone, that much is true. And of course that also means he is cutting off the cash flow being used to finance the Glorious Bolivarian Revolution. Your call, El Presidente.

If on the other hand he intends to sell Venezuelan oil to anyone except the USA (and presumably the UK and Netherlands as well as they have also been crossed off his Christmas Card list), then... who cares? As oil is fungible, it just goes into a big global market and what does it matter if Venezuelan oil goes to China instead of the USA when all it means is that someone else's oil will take its place?

(5)

Fidel Castro is on the mend and is ready to resume a political role, according to Brazillian President Luis Inacio Lula de Silva.

Although his future has been a matter of speculation, Dr Castro on December 17 gave his strongest hint he would not return to power, in a letter read on television. "My basic duty is not to cling to office, nor even more so to obstruct the rise of people much younger, but to pass on experiences and ideas whose modest value arises from the exceptional era in which I lived," he said in a signed letter.

(58)

Venezuela is a case study of how democracy is no sure defence against tyranny and how it can actually be the means by which it comes about. I realise we already have the example of Germany in the 1930's, but unlike the NSDAP, the democratic majority for Chavez was far less ambiguous than the ones that incrementally brought Hitler to power.

It was interesting to note how many on the left (with many honourable exceptions I must add) have supported the establishment of a state television monopoly in Venezuela once the Chavez regime announced it was going to shut down anti-government station Rádio Caracas Televisión.

However is good to see people on the street marching in defiance of Hugo Chavez. Will it make any difference? In the short run, probably not, but it is never wrong to make a stand against a tyrant regardless of how popular he may be.

(12)

This has to rank as one of the strangest reports I have read so far this year:

Two circus clowns have been shot dead during a performance in the eastern Colombian city of Cucuta, police say...

Last year, a prominent circus clown, known as Pepe, was also shot dead by a unknown assailant in Cucuta.

I find clowns deeply irritating but surely lethal force is a little excessive. Don't they have custard pies in that part of the world?

(9)

In the latest pull-out-of-the-middle-and-bin travel supplement in the Radio Times, there is an advert for going on holiday in Cuba:

Warm golden sand touched by shimmering seas, endlessly clear and calm. Sparkling contrasts. A deep sense of harmony. Cuba is life.

Unless you are one of the poor bastards who actually has to live there.

A Cuba tourism website was mentioned at the bottom of the advert. I went there, seeking further Cubanities to sneer at. I was not disappointed. In the Knowing Culture section, I read:

Cuba's cultura is very prestigious. It happy people live very rooted to its traditions and customs. If you want to know about that go and visit the museums.

"Rooted to its traditions and customs" as in "bugger all has happened for the last fifty years". Say what you like about communism, at least it avoids disfiguring the landscape with a lot of mucky economic development. Well, muck they can do. It's the economic development they avoid. Film companies love communism, because huge swathes of ancient places get preserved by it as if in aspic, needing only a scrub-down and then some mending and a lick of paint to bring the distant past back to instant and authentic life.

As the heading says here, about some very boring-looking historical building:

Arranged Historical Place as Museum

A phrase that would do well as a description of Cuba itself. One instinctively knows which questions not to ask.

Meanwhile, back at the Knowing Culture section, the blurb ends thus:

If you take a tour of our cities you will see the development of music, dance or plastic arts, manifestations that have left a trace in the world.

Mostly in Miami.

So, potential tourists living outside Cuba have no problem accessing the internetted tourist version of Cuba. But what is internet access like for the the natives?

With less than 2 per cent of its population online, Cuba is one of the most backward Internet countries. An investigation carried out by Reporters Without Borders in October revealed that the Cuban government uses several levers to ensure that this medium is not used in a "counter-revolutionary" way. Firstly, it has more or less banned private Internet connections. To surf the Internet or check their e-mail, Cubans have to go to public access points such as Internet cafes, universities and "youth computer clubs" where their activity is more easily monitored. Secondly, the computers in all the Internet cafes and leading hotels contain software installed by the Cuban police that triggers an alert message whenever "subversive" key-words are spotted. The regime also ensures that there is no Internet access for dissidents and independent journalists, for whom communicating with people abroad is an ordeal. Finally, the government also relies on self-censorship. You can get 20 years in prison for writing "counter-revolutionary" articles for foreign websites. You can even get five years just for connecting to the Internet illegally. Few Internet users dare to run the risk of defying the regime's censorship.

Which would explain the "deep sense of harmony".

(6)

"Castro Reportedly in Grave," begins an Associated Press headline. Unfortunately, the next word is "Condition."

- James Taranto

(44)

The message is simple: get out now.

Chavez is calling for 'Socialism or Death' and that in fact means 'Socialism and Death'. As it appears a majority actually supports him, not much will be gained by putting a bullet between this man's eyes as clearly the problem lies deeper than the life of a single tyrant (though that is not to say that shooting tyrants is ever a bad idea).

If you are have property, sell it if you can, but get the hell out. If you are creative and intelligent, there is a whole world out there in which to rebuild your life. There may come a time in the future when you can come back, either to help pick up the wreckage of the totalitarian experiment voted for by a kleptomaniac majority, or to woo back your nation at bayonet point, but for now, for God's sake get out with what you can as soon as you can.

And if you are a shareholder in a multi-national company... feeling a little stupid now, eh? At least try and do the decent thing and torch as much infrastructure you own tonight to leave as little to sustain the parasites who are about to nationalise your operations in Venezuela.

(25)

Reason magazine's Brian Doherty (he of Burning Man fame) has written a nice piece looking at the controversial role the late Milton Friedman played in advising economic reforms to the government of the late, and not-very-lamented, Augusto Pinochet of Chile.

The New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis declared in 1975 that "The Chilean junta’s economic policy is based on the ideas of Milton Friedman…and his Chicago School...if the pure Chicago economic theory can be carried out in Chile only at the price of repression, should its authors feel some responsibility?" Such attitudes haunted Friedman to his death and beyond.

The reaction of some of the usual conservative suspects to Pinochet’s death didn’t help debunk this unfortunate association. Since he was a pro-American autocrat, who ultimately honoured a plebiscite and stepped down, portions of the American right have always had an unhealthy affection for the general. National Review ran both a symposium and a stand alone piece by former editor John O'Sullivan marking Pinochet’s passing, neither of which were much outraged about his crimes. O’Sullivan explicitly said , in the sort of bizarre moral prisoner exchange that partisan squabbling generates, that sure, Pinochet should suffer for his villainy - but only if Castro and Allende’s associates do as well.

I agree with pretty much every word of Doherty's analysis, and his punchline is good:

Undoubtedly, Friedman's decision to interact with officials of repressive governments creates uncomfortable tensions for his libertarian admirers; I could, and often do, wish he hadn't done it. But given what it probably meant for economic wealth and liberty in the long term for the people of Chile, that's a selfish reaction. Pinochet's economic policies do not ameliorate his crimes, despite what his right-wing admirers say. But Friedman, as an economic advisor to all who'd listen, neither committed his crimes, nor admired the criminal.

Those leftists who nitpick at the late economist for his role in advising the Chilean regime have only the tiniest of legitimate reasons for bashing Friedman, I think. Considering that he was a man who made the case for abolishing the draft, decriminalising drugs, promoting school choice and so forth, his credentials as a pro-liberty guy were pretty much impeccable.

(107)

Other people will debate whether Augusto Pinochet, who died yesterday, was a wicked man who led a regime that killed three thousand people, or whether he should have killed rather more than three thousand as his communists foes have never had much of a moral problem with killing their enemies. My own opinion is that one should never kill an unarmed enemy - no matter what he or she might have been planning to do.

In the interests of honesty I should note that was not my opinion at the time. Many other communists regarded the independent Marxist President Allende as too rash and it is worth noting he was never a member of the official Communist party of Chile. Indeed when I heard the story about a group of communists mostly from outside Chile had been building forces from all over Latin America and beyond, had been told that President was about to deliver a speech and that they should come (leaving their firearms behind) and, when they got to the place the speech was supposed to take place, they were greeted with 50 calibre machine guns - well I laughed. But I was a child when I heard that story and children tend to be cruel.

Everyone has different levels of being shocked. For example, Pinochet either did not care (or did not want to know) about torture and summary execution. But when he got to hear of a rape of a prisoner he went through the roof (I heard this story from the prisoner via a BBC radio interview years ago) - the 'holy army' of Chile, based on the army of pre World War I Prussia - with joining up to the officer corps at the age of 15 and a monk like existence to one's early 20's, must not behave like 'Argentines', the prisoner must be released - and whoever was responsible must be...

On the democracy issue: It is true that Allende got more votes than any other candidate for President in the 1970 election (he got about a third of the vote), but he had violated the Constitution so much since then that the Congress had voted to outlaw him. Of course Pinochet did not turn over power to the Congress - he dissolved it (whatever it thought of Allende, the Congress with its majority of socialists and Christian Democrats would not have favoured someone who had just killed a lot of people - that it a problem with picking up a gun and doing some killing, how do you put it down again and not get punished?). By the way it was not, as is often claimed, the "first military coup in the history of Chile" as there was the coup of 1924 (but perhaps that does not count, as it was a leftist coup).

But then what do you do? I suppose one could rule as a military dictator for life - without any constitutional settlement, but (for better or worse) that is not what Pinochet wanted to do. Yes there was repression and yes there was terrorism (not all the violence was one way - even though Pinochet had used the element of surprise to kill or arrest a lot of the communists before they had a chance to organize their war effort).

After the economy recovered from the mass takeover of private property, both the official nationalizations, and the unofficial takeovers by armed mobs that Allende had organized, and from the hyper inflation, which was neither 'caused by the CIA' nor caused by 'Marxism' - Allende and his people just liked printing money like crazy, there is not a word anywhere in the writings of Karl Marx that urges such a policy,. Pinochet got a Constitution passed by the voters in (if my memory serves) 1981 so that he could point to popular support, but then the economy fell off a cliff again.

The reason for this is interesting. For a man who is supposed to have been close to Milton Friedman (in fact they only met once, and Friedman often openly said that he opposed military government) Pinochet ignored a central teaching of his - one must not rig exchange rates.

The truth is that Pinochet did not know much about economics. And the advisers that he had ('Chicago boys' or not) did not agree with Milton Friedman on this - they thought 'rigging' the exchange rate to the Dollar was a good way of getting rid of high inflation.

Actually the supply of fiat (government command) money is the only thing they should have been looking at. But they wanted to be clever and run an exchange rate scam.

I do not know why people do this. Nigel Lawson (to give one example) actually wrote against this practice when he was editor of the Spectator, but as Chancellor he himself rigged the exchange rate of the Pound (with the D-Mark) which led to the expansion of the money supply and a classic boom-bust cycle (which the economically illiterate blamed on tax cuts).

True the Chilean economy recovered (when the rigging was stopped), but Pinochet never really had majority support again. As he found out in the 1989 vote. The economy had recovered, he thought he was going win - but he lost.

Various Christian Democrats (really social democrat) have held office since 1990, these days an official social democrat holds office which (no doubt) means there will be an ever bigger rise in government health, education and welfare spending. No conservative has won a contested election for President of Chile in my life time - although they might have won in 1964 (if the Americans had not backed the Christian Democrats so much).

So was it all for nothing?

No, the compulsory pension system still has some real investments (rather than being entirely a government Ponzi scheme like the British and American systems). And the government does not have a monopoly of health or education (although there is pressure for more statism in both).

Most importantly there is still private property in the means of production in Chile. True, the copper industry in mostly state owned. The American backed Christian Democrat government of 1964-1970 started the nationalization of that - and the military got too much money out of the copper mines to really want to turn most of them over to private enterprise - actually they may happen under the civilians as selling the mines is a good way of getting money to spend on their welfare schemes, but most other things are private.

Chile still has some of the highest living standards in Latin America (and it would not have without Pinochet's time in power). And as for killings - those people opposed to Marxism who did not leave Chile would have been killed if the Marxists had remained in power, and that would have been a few million dead rather than a few thousand. Although, as I said at the start, that does not make killing a few thousand people right.

(15)

So the social democrat who promised the people more government health care, education and welfare, higher minimum wage and so on, has been defeated. Even taking account of Chavez rigging things it seems likely that (with a claim of some 60% of the vote) he really did win.

Chavez promised the same things as the social democrat of course, but he offers more entertainment value. Jumping about the world and allying himself with anyone (Putin in Russia, the mad Mullahs of Iran and so on) who hates Uncle Sam.

At least Chavez understands that these people do hate America (and Western values in general), unlike so many people in Washington who think they can 'talk' to the Iranian regime (what would be there to be talk about - whether the evil infidels of the world should be buried or cremated?). Or President Bush who "looked into the soul" of Mr Putin and discovered that he was a "good man".

As for the elections: I am often attacked for saying nasty things about the way people sometimes vote, but the case of Venezuela is a tough one for the "the people may make mistakes but they mean well" crowd.

President Chavez was first elected in 1998. He had previously led a military coup effort (which, on its own, should have sunk bid for the office of President of the Republic). He was up against a rather boring social democrat type - but there was nothing evil about that man. Venezuela was at peace (so there was no "it was the war stupid" factor), and no one could seriously believe that Chavez would be less corrupt than his opponent or that he would be any better at what is now called the "management of the economy".

So why did the majority of people vote the way they did? They voted that way because Chavez played class war "the poor against the rich" - forget that the Venezuela government had spent vast sums of money, it still was not enough.

Why was it not enough? Was it because there were still lots of very poor people? Certainly, but in their hearts these people knew that they would still be just as poor under Chavez (and if they did not know in 1998 they certainly knew last Sunday - when they voted for him again, in spite of all the billions that have gone on his overseas alliances and in corruption). The majority vote they way they do because they see that there are well off people - and they want these people to suffer as much as they do.

A vote for Chavez is not a vote to make oneself better off (and it never was), it is a vote to make other people as poor and as unhappy as one is oneself.

Voting for people like Chavez is not a 'mistake', it is something very different.

(35)

I hear that the anti-leftist candidate for President of Ecuador has been overwhelmingly defeated by the leftist candidate (an academic 'economist' who thinks, among other things, that free trade with the United States would be bad for Ecuador).

The last time saw the anti-leftist candidate (a very wealthy businessman) via television, he was on his knees (quite literally) begging for votes and promising people "jobs, homes, health care, education" (etc.) if only they would vote for him. And he has gone down to defeat by about two thirds of the voters.

He might as well have given a very different speech.

"Subhuman scum, when you vote for the leftist (which I am sure you will) he will put into place policies that will make you suffer greatly - some of you may even starve to death. This is exactly what deserve - as you lust after goods that are not yours and are prepared to use violence, or to have other people use violence on your behalf, to get those goods. I have sold all my property and have taken the money out of the country, I am speaking to you via satellite from the Cayman islands".

Certainly he would still have lost, but he would not have humiliated himself by going on his knees, begging and promising the moon. And he would have saved the fortune the election campaign cost him.

(11)

There is a long and detailed report in the London Times today about the scale of gangland and police violence in Brazil's Sao Paulo. If ever there was an account ramming home the distance between the image of Brazil as a fun-loving, sun-soaked nation and a country of enormous social and economic problems, this surely is it.

Brazil is one of those country's that I would love to visit some day (I am a bit of a nut about Brazilian music). But stuff like this does not exactly get me rushing to get on the aircraft.

(16)

Interesting article here on what might be in store for Cuba as and when Fidel Castro finally dies. My hope, probably naive, is that that country finally gets a break and enjoys the fruits of free enterprise. One thing that makes me annoyed is whenever I hear of affluent Western travellers go on about how they dream of going to Cuba before it "gets spoiled by U.S.-led development". Yes, I am sure all those crumbling houses in Hanava, all those ancient 1950s cars and cute old guys with no teeth look so, you know, authentic in contrast to the frightfully ghastly prosperity of Miami or for that matter, Hong Kong.

Like a good friend of mine, I am only going to Cuba when or if it becomes a shameless hotbet of capitalist vigour and not one minute before.

(19)

What the hell is one supposed to make of this?

The point at which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez decided that London should serve as a model for services and governance in Caracas was not immediately apparent. He came in May, visited City Hall amid much controversy and fanfare, and was soon gone.

But the result of his visit is likely to be an extraordinary deal struck with London Mayor Ken Livingstone that would see Caracas benefit from the capital's expertise in policing, tourism, transport, housing and waste disposal.

London, meanwhile, would gain the most obvious asset the Venezuelans have to give: cheap oil. Possibly more than a million barrels of the stuff.

South American diesel would be supplied by Venezuela - the world's fifth-largest oil exporter - as fuel for some of the capital's 8,000 buses, particularly those services most utilized by the poor.

This is gesture politics at its most contemptible. It is particularly bad given that the poor of London are, by any meaningful yardstick, considerably better off than their counterparts in the South American nation. The idea that Venezuela, a nation led by a thug who's democratic credentials could be best described as flaky, is some sort of benefactor to the oppressed masses of London, is an utter joke. It is also particularly ironic that as part of this "deal", London will "help" Venezuela's tourist industry. No doubt Venezuelans cannot wait to discover the joys of the British welcoming service ethic.

We tend to dismiss the antics of Ken Livingstone as political theatre. If he wants to stand on platforms with Irish Republican murderers, we giggle. If he provides platforms for gay-hating Islamic preachers, we are all supposed to roll our eyes in amusement. Good ol' Ken, what a laugh.

Incidentally, I wonder what the British government thinks about this?

(5)

By 'our side' I mean the people fighting the Marxist FARC in Colombia - particularly President Uribe. I not expect mainstream politicians to be libertarians (although it would be nice), but I do expect them to have some common sense.

President Uribe is highly intelligent man who has had considerable success in fighting the communists in Colombia. However, his latest idea (as reported in this week's Economist print edition) shows a lack of common sense (a state of affairs all too common in politicians - including highly intelligent ones).

President Uribe wishes to cut the top rate of income tax - good for him. However, the President wishes to 'balance' this by extending sales tax to cover various basic foods. Have no fear, the poor would be able to claim back the money they pay in tax.

So a new tax will be introduced (a tax on food), and this will be 'balanced' by a new welfare benefit (for make no mistake, this is what this payment will be). A complicated bureaucratic mess. Sadly it is often the most intelligent of politicians who think up ideas like this.

If someone wants to cut the top rate of income tax (from 38% to 32% or whatever) then they should do so. But if they fear a 'loss of revenue' (and cutting the top rate of income tax always 'costs' less in revenue than many people predict) they should cut government spending (which they should do anyway).

They should not introduce a new tax, certainly not a tax that will be presented (by the communists, but not just by them) as a tax on the basic needs of the poor - trapping the poor into going 'cap in hand' for a new benefit (if they can deal with all the paper work).

(14)

There is still no official word that statist Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has passed away, so any obituaries will have to remain on ice. It is not our habit at Samizdata.net to concede a thing to dictators, but one has to credit Castro for his tenacity in clinging on to power, especially after the collapse of his Soviet patron in 1991.

One must never forget though that the Cuban people have had to pay the price for Castro's tenacity.

What to do about Castro has been a policy question that has vexed every US President since John F. Kennedy. Until the end of the Cold War, the US certainly could not ignore a violently pro-Soviet state on its doorstep, but after 1991, a policy of benign neglect might have worked to undo Castro. However, one of the features of US policy has been its vulnerability to poltics, in this case, the political wishes of the large Cuban exile population in the politically sensitive state of Florida. (For example, President Clinton felt he had to sign the Helms-Burton Act which regulates the US embargo against Cuba, in an attempt to secure the state for the 1996 Presidential elections.)

Peggy Noonan has more on the political impact of Castro on America. I like her policy prescription as well.

As in: Allow Americans to go to Cuba. Allow U.S. private money into Cuba. Let hotels, homes, restaurants, stores be developed, bought, opened, reopened. Use Fidel's death to reintroduce Cubans on the ground to Americans, American ways, American money and American freedom. Remind them of what they wanted, what they thought they were getting when the bearded one came down from the Sierra Maestre. Use his death/illness/collapse/disappearing act as an excuse to turn the past 40 years of policy on its head. Declare him over. Create new ties. Ignore the dictator, make partnerships with the people.

Yes give more money to Radio Marti and all Western government efforts to communicate with the people of Cuba. But also allow American media companies in. Make a jumble, shake it up, allow the conditions that can help create economic vibrancy and let that reinspire democratic thinking. The Cuban government, hit on all fronts by dynamism for the first time in half a century, will not be able to control it all.

That is how to undo Fidel, and Fidelism. That's how to give him, on the chance he's alive, a last and lingering headache. That's how to puncture his mystique. Let his people profit as he dies.

If he is actually ill, why not arrange it so that the last sounds he hears on earth are a great racket from the streets? What, he will ask the nurse, is that? "Oh," she can explain, "they are rebuilding Havana. It's the Hilton Corp. Except for the drills. That's Steve Wynn. The jackhammer is Ave Maria University, building an extension campus."

Imagine him hearing this. It would, finally, be the exploding cigar. That's the way to make his beard fall off.

Now that would be poetic justice.

(6)

The President of Chile has "given in" to student and school pupil 'strikes' and protests. Of course the story is really a little more complicated than that as Madam President (Michelle Bachelet) was really as the same side as the people making noise waving placards on the streets. Otherwise the "strikes" would not have been much of a threat. It would have been a matter of "oh you do not want all this taxpayers money spent on you - fine, we will close the establishments you are not bothering to go to".

The moderate left has been in power since 1990 and have increased education (however this spending is calculated), but that is not enough for the protesters. They complain that state schools are not as good as private schools and this has an effect on their chances of getting into a good college and getting a good job.

So what do they want done?

Do they want self management of the schools? This method does not really work in making state financed institutions act as if they were not state financed (cats do not bark) - but it is a standard suggestion (going back to the "market socialists" in Austria in the 1920's), and it might have positive impact at the margin.

Errrr no. State schools in Chile already have some self management - the protesters wanted national government control (and President Bachelet has agreed).

Perhaps the protesters wanted to introduce examinations into state schools (some people argue that selective state schools are a way of helping upward social mobility).

Again no. The protesters want all entry examinations for state schools banned - how that is supposed to help make state schools as good as private schools is something that is not explained.

The real story is that after sixteen years of rule by the moderate left less moderate leftist forces are taking over. And President Bachelet is tilting a bit that way. My guess is that most of these school pupils and college students are most likely nice people. Not only nice as individuals, but capable of voluntary interaction in civil society. If there were less taxes and more voluntary (whether religious or secular) schools they might do better.

However, politics ruins everything. No doubt even in most of the private schools and colleges people are taught that representative government is what people should look to - not each other. As long as government is democrat it can be "a force for good" (unlike the old military dictator - no doubt the young are not taught anything good about him).

But democracy does not alter the laws of political economy. Government may (or may not) be a lesser evil - a way of countering other force (whether by bandits or by invaders), but it can not be a force for good - giving people nice things better than they could provide for themselves and for each other. This belief in government (as long as it is democrat government) as a provider of nice things is the central myth of our age. To win an election (we are told) one must pander to this belief. If this is true and remains true, civilization will fall. Hopefully, it will change.

(5)

How else? You might ask. But this abstract in McKinsey Quarterly caught my attention with its astounding wrong-headedness:

How Brazil can Grow -

The most important obstacle is Brazil's huge informal economy which, distorts competition by putting efficient, law-abiding companies at a disadvantage. Macroeconomic instability­reflected in the high cost of capital­is the second-most-important hurdle, followed by regulations (such as rigid labor laws) that limit productivity.

Could it possibly be that it's the top-heavy regulatory state and shocking tax rates on officially recognised activities that are keep the poor poor, small companies small, and the poltically unconnected outside the system hoping not to be noticed? It couldn't be state favouritism and that same capricious regulatory apparatus that keep the risks high and capital proportionately expensive? It would also be interesting to know in what sense 'efficient' and 'law-abiding' go hand in hand in such circumstances. It is implied that unlawful, invisible, enterprises are inefficient ones (in whatever sense that is). How do they know?

(8)

The UK's Channel 4 news channel tends, in my experience, to cover the news with a fairly obvious leftist slant, so it was quite a surprise this evening to watch the programme's longish report about what is going on in Venezuela, focussing on the activities of President Chavez and his increasingly dictatorial leanings.

I have a very rough-and-ready theory, which holds that countries blessed with vast natural resources are, in some senses, cursed. Venezuela is one of the world's top oil producers and at a time when crude is trading at the present high levels, it means that a demagogue like Chavez can buy favours with selected groups for quite a while. A country not so blessed -- such as Hong Kong say -- has to live on its free market wits. In some cases an oil-rich place -- such as Dubai, which I mentioned a while ago -- is led by folk with the wit to develop its economy with a mind on what will happen when the black gold runs out.

This blog does not seem to like Chavez very much. As and when his government falls, it will not be a pleasant process.

(13)

Interesting how these things get around. The word of these amazing photos of Mexico City got to me from him, who got it from him, who got it from him, who apparently found them here, which is where, for me, the trail went cold.

The picture Patrick Crozier chose to reproduce is particularly extraordinary. Talk about 'fake but real'. Something to do with how the guy photoshops the pictures to make things clearer, I am guessing. I often do the same with shots I take from airplanes.

Architecturally, I think this is particularly bizarre. There are times, may the God Who Does Not Exist forgive me, when I yearn for a violent revolution in sleepy little Britain, just so that the planning permission (i.e. non-permission for almost anything remotely interesting except when the government wants it) system collapses, and people could build, in Britain's still overwhelmingly green and pleasant land, whatever crazy thing they liked. Just as a for instance, why are there not more castles built nowadays, with cylindrical and pointy towers?

Mind you, extraordinary things are still being built in Britain, by the sort of people who are still allowed to do such things.

(20)

Despite the urging of much of Brazil's ruling classes to support the measure, the world's first national referendum which put the proposition to ban the sale of firearms was smashed decisively by a 2:1 margin.

The people who are baffled why so many common people in a murder wracked country like Brazil would oppose such a measure need to realise that it is precisely because the country has such problems with violent crime that people need the means to protect themselves.

As I have said on other occasions - the right to keep and bear arms: it's not just for American anymore.

Maybe more Brazillians in London should be armed as well...

(20)

A new film is to be made about Che Guevara, the man whose image adorns the T-shirts of many a young student "radical" or someone trying to appear hip (even if they haven't much clue about his real life). This story, drawn from a report at the Venice Film Festival, suggests that the man will be portrayed warts an' all, making use of declassified CIA files. Good. It is something of a pet issue here at Samizdata that while the monsters of Fascism are rightly excoriated in film and print and unthinkable of a youngster to wear a picture of Adolf Hitler on his shirt, it is considered okay to do the same with the portrait of a mass murderer like Lenin or Chairman Mao. Of course in some cases the results of this mindset are unintentionally amusing.

Maybe the message is getting through. Totalitarian socialists are not hip, and not clever.

(15)

I love this headline:

Castro Lauds Cuban Municipal Elections

I bet he does.

Under Cuba's one-party system, city and provincial leaders, as well as representatives of the National Assembly, are elected by citizens on a local level. Anyone can be nominated to these posts, including non-members of the island's ruling communist party – the only one recognized in Cuba's constitution.

So, in theory, anyone can stand for election, and if they win they can then take part in choosing anyone as President.

Well, not quite.

Cuba consistently defends its system as democratic, but critics of Castro's government argue that tight state control, a heavy police presence and neighborhood-watch groups that report on their neighbors prevent any real political freedom on the island.

It is easy to sneer, and I hereby sneer, at elections like this. But what also strikes me is that fraudulent though this system obviously is at the moment, it might eventually mutate into something genuine. To put it another way, window dressing can end up taking over the shop.

What if Castro dies – Castro will, I predict, eventually die – and there is no longer any widespread agreement about who it is proper to vote for, and who those voted for should themselves vote for when they choose Castro's successor?

At least Castro now feels sufficiently pressured by the challenge of true democracy to feel the need to arrange his own fraudulent version of it. And the experience of participating in this charade is quite likely to make at least some of those taking part in it wonder how it might feel to vote in a real election.

(8)

Harry Hutton mostly does sarky, misanthropic humour, so this on the spot reportage from Colombia might very well get missed by a lot of more earnest types than him who would appreciate reading it.

Here is John Pilger arguing that American military aid has caused a humanitarian disaster in Colombia. The trouble with this is that, since the really huge flows of US arms and money began, the level of violence has plunged.

Kidnapping fell 42% last year, and 26% the year before that; the number of massacres was down 53% in 2004, and murder fell 17.7%; street crime, the number of displaced persons, crime against taxi drivers... all down. And every single Colombian I have spoken to, without a single exception, has told me that the situation has improved. I had dinner with some foreign human rights workers, who told me that this was also their strong impression.

Harry's commenters have mostly concentrated not on whether the above reportage is true, but rather about the rights and wrongs of legalising the drugs, the proceeds of which are so much a part of the problems of Colombia. Or maybe not, because Colombia has always been a violent place. I favour total drug legalisation for all the usual libertarian reasons, but whatever you think about that, this is an interesting piece of reportage.

A few other commenters have also pointed out what a lying twat Pilger is. It is good that such drivel as his can now be challenged quickly by bloggers who, unlike Pilger, actually know what Pilger is talking about. Had I come across it by some other route, I would have dismissed Pilger's piece as almost certainly being made-up rubbish, purely because of who it is by, but it is nice to be sure.

(26)

Yet another attempt is underway to portray Ernesto 'Che' Guevara as someone who was actually admirable, rather than someone who should be remembered, if at all, as an inept communist thug and mass murderer who deserves to be buried under the scrapheap of history.

Fortunately not everyone is fooled.