Foreign corporations flock to Venezuela for oil contracts--WTF?

[Peace Patriot]

If you've been reading all the doom and gloom about Venezuela in our corpo-fascist press, you might be surprised to find out that Chevron (U.S), Mitsubishi, Impex (Japan), Repsol (Spain), Petronas (Malaysia), three Indian companies, and ENI (Italy) just signed huge oil contracts with the Chavez government of Venezuela, on the Chavez government's terms--60/40 split of the profits favoring Venezuela and its social programs, Venezuela's state oil company retains the majority share in the ventures.

Here are the facts:

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_58486.shtml
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5134
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=87938

Here is the corpo-fascist 'news' monopoly spin (some of it is hilarious):

-------------------------------

(Miami Hairball editorial, 2/8/10)

Venezuela heads toward disaster

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/1468724.html

-----

Did you know that, "Mr. Chávez has undermined, if not destroyed Venezuela's once vibrant, if imperfect, democracy"? So says the Hairball. Here are their paragraphs on Venezuela's oil company....

---

The problem with PDVSA, the oil company, as Venezuelans well know, is that Mr. Chávez turned it into a sinecure for political cronies, destroying its once admirable efficiency and productive value. Only by putting the experts back in charge can it hope to recover, but President Chávez is not about to hand authority over to anyone who is not a known loyalist.

The problems at PDVSA are emblematic of what's wrong with Venezuela and why his Bolivarian revolution is in trouble. Mr. Chávez has run the economy, and the country, into the ground, but that hasn't stopped him from making trouble wherever he can.

As the streets of Caracas were in turmoil, the U.S. director of national intelligence, former Admiral Dennis Blair, was giving Congress an unvarnished assessment of Mr. Chávez's presidency that underlines the danger he represents to the entire region.

He has cultivated friendships in all the wrong places, beginning with Iran, spent $6 billion to buy weapons from Russia, and provided covert support to the terrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/1468724.html

----------

Hm? They left out that he has cultivated friendships with, um, Chevron (U.S), Mitsubishi, Impex (Japan), Repsol (Spain), Petronas (Malaysia), three Indian companies, and ENI (Italy), showing how rotten Chavez's relations are with the rest of the world, and how his only friend is the latest U.S. oil target, Iran. Two other facts that fell into the black hole at the Miami Hairball: Brazil's Lula da Silva also invited Iran to Brazil. And Chavez has close friends and allies throughout Latin America including the leaders of Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Nicaragua. And he meets monthly with Brazil's president to discuss issues of common concern.)

-----------------

But, fun as it is to peer into the black holes where information should be, at the Miami Hairball, let's move on to the New York Slimes and the just-announced huge oil deals. I am boldfacing Simon Romero's lies and spins, for your edification and I've added footnote numbers to the text (at the end of some paragraphs), for discussion, below:

----

Sealing Shift, Chávez Gives Contracts to Western Oil Companies

By SIMON ROMERO
Published: February 11, 2010

CARACAS, Venezuela — After clashing with foreign oil companies in recent years, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has shifted strategy and awarded contracts to Western oil companies, hoping to increase his nation’s flagging oil production and pull the country out of a sharp economic downturn.(1)

Chevron, the American oil giant, led a group of companies that won one of the concessions on Wednesday night, showing the resilience of trade ties between the nations. The United States remains the largest consumer of Venezuelan oil despite the deterioration of political relations over the last decade.(2)

Venezuela quietly began courting Western oil companies again in 2008 after nationalizing some of their assets, imposing higher royalties on them and subjecting their executives to raids by tax authorities. Even now, Venezuela is considered one of the riskiest countries in which to do business of any kind, and a number of major Western oil companies stayed out of the bidding.(2)

But the oil companies that participated are hoping to increase their access to the coveted Orinoco Belt, an area the size of Costa Rica in southern Venezuela that may contain one of the world’s largest recoverable oil reserves. The United States Geological Survey described the Orinoco Belt last month in a report as the largest petroleum accumulation it had assessed, containing an estimated 513 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Facing a decline in oil revenues and a dearth of foreign investment, Mr. Chávez seemed eager to address any lingering concerns the Western oil companies might have about operating in his country. (3)

“Dear friends, partners, allies, you know you have all the guarantees of our Constitution and our laws,” Mr. Chávez said Wednesday night in a ceremony at his palace, broadcast on state television, in which he thanked the foreign companies for bidding.

In an unusual display of warmth given his friction with Washington, Mr. Chávez happily greeted a senior Chevron executive in attendance, Ali Moshiri, the company’s president of African and Latin American operations. Mr. Chávez conceded that differences remained with the Obama administration, but he also extended an invitation for President Obama to visit Venezuela’s southern oil region, telling Mr. Moshiri, “You bring him here.” (3)

Some foreign oil companies that had shown interest in the auction — including Royal Dutch/Shell, Brazil’s Petrobras and Total of France — opted not to bid. Mr. Chávez is moving ahead with nationalizations in other industries, like the seizure last month of stores controlled by the French retailer Casino, which appears to have scared foreign investors. (4)

Chevron, which maintains the warmest relations with Mr. Chávez of any American oil company, led a group that includes the Mitsubishi Corporation of Japan, winning access to one area in the Orinoco Belt. The Spanish oil company Repsol YPF led another group that won a separate contract in a partnership with the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation of India and Petronas of Malaysia.

A contract for a third area in the Orinoco Belt was not awarded, reflecting the reluctance of other oil companies to take part in the auction. The groups led by Chevron and Repsol agreed to cede control in their ventures to Petróleos de Venezuela, Mr. Chávez’s national oil company, in addition to securing all the financing for their projects, which could require as much as $30 billion. (5)

If the two oil projects led by Chevron and Repsol are completed, they will each increase Venezuela’s oil production by about 400,000 barrels a day, a crucial amount for the long-term economic viability of Mr. Chávez’s government, which relies on oil for more than 90 percent of its export income.

The dependence on oil has grown more acute during Mr. Chávez’s 11 years in power. Grappling with a steep drop in oil income since 2008, Mr. Chávez was forced last month to devalue the nation’s currency, the bolívar. Venezuela is also struggling with a galloping inflation rate of 27 percent, the highest in Latin America, and intensifying electricity blackouts. (6)

“It’s not that Chávez is suddenly embracing a market system or respect for property,” said Roger Tissot, an expert on Venezuela’s energy industry at Gas Energy, a Brazilian consulting firm specializing in Latin America. “He’s like a chameleon who can change his stripes when he realizes Venezuela’s long-term economic survival is at stake.” (7)

Some private energy executives here doubt that the oil projects will materialize, given the technical challenges of extracting the Orinoco Belt’s oil, which is heavy in impurities and hard to refine, and the uncertainty of doing business in Venezuela. Moreover, Mr. Chávez announced only the award of the deals; final operating agreements must still be negotiated and signed. Recent attempts to reach other oil production ventures with companies from China, Belarus, Russia, Italy and Vietnam have advanced slowly, if at all. (8)

But concessions made by Petróleos de Venezuela and the oil companies during the bidding process suggested the seriousness of both sides, some energy analysts said. The groups led by Chevron and Repsol agreed to pay signing fees of about $500 million and $1 billion, respectively, as part of their bids. Some of the fees may be payable in installments, and possibly with vouchers used to offset losses from nationalizations. (8)

“Chávez was clear in stating that Venezuela and the companies need each other,” said David Voght, managing director of IPD Latin America, an energy consulting firm here. “When you decide to put down bonuses of $500 million and $1 billion, you are very serious about developing these projects.”

Chevron in particular has a long history of doing business in Venezuela, opting to stay in the country in 2007 and become a minority partner with Petróleos de Venezuela after the government took control of foreign oil projects. Other American companies, including Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, clashed with Mr. Chávez and left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/world/americas/12venez.html

-------------------

FOOTNOTES:

What has really happened in Venezuela is that, due to the Venezuelan peoples' development of their democracy, including long hard work on a transparent, "best practices" election system, they were able to elect a government that attends to their interests in contract negotiations with multinational oil corporations. As a consequence of the wellness of Venezuelan democracy, the Chavez government beat back the U.S. (Bush-Cheney/Exxon Mobil)-supported oil bosses' lockout of 2003 (not to mention the USAID-funded recall election of 2004, and the earlier U.S.-supported rightwing coup of 2002) and created a new oil policy, which Chavez mentions in one of the articles above (the venezuelanalysis article): "He said it was a historical move, 'now that we have recovered our independence, we’ve made the Orinoco oil belt available to the world.'” He also says, "We are equals"--of Venezuela vs. the multinationals.

Before Chavez, they were not equal. The multinationals called the shots. They extracted 10/90 deals, favoring themselves. They didn't pay their taxes, even with these pro-corporate deals given to them by previous rightwing governments. The Chavez government has insisted on a 60/40 share of the profits, favoring Venezuela and its social programs, and a majority (controlling) share for Venezuela's national oil company in these enterprises to develop the biggest oil reserves on earth (twice Saudi Arabia's). Exxon Mobil walked out of those talks, and went into a "first world" court (London) to try to punish Venezuela, and its school children and its elderly and its poor majority, by seizing $12 billion of Venezuela's international cash reserves. They lost that legal effort. They hate Chavez, because he won't give them ALL the profits and let them run rampant over Venezuela's sovereignty. Thus, the New York Slimes and its slimebag 'reporter,' Simon Romero, also hate Chavez, and have been leading the psyops/disinformation campaign against him, which is no less intense that their false, lying WMD campaign against U.S. oil target Iraq.

(1) In Romero's twists and turns, and full 180 spins, of this story of the TRIUMPH of Chavez oil policy, he starts with the lie, in the very first sentence, that these huge new oil deals represent a "shift of strategy" by Chavez. But Chavez hasn't budged. He got the 60/40 deal for the Venezuelan people and furthermore asserted and won their sovereign right to have a controlling interest in the development of their major resource.

(2) He then proceeds to a series of lies and spins about what these oil deals mean and don't mean. Above all, according to him, they DON'T mean that Venezuela is a per fectly viable investment opportunity. He starts with the contextual lie that Chevron winning an oil contract shows "the resilience of trade ties between the nations." Resilience in regard to what? He doesn't say. How about resilience in the face of non-stop hostility by the U.S. government and its corpo-fascist 'news' horns? Chevron winning a contract, on Venezuela's terms, primarily shows the persistence of the Chavez government in representing the interests of the Venezuelan people. It also shows that the people of Venezuela getting a big share of the profits is FAIR--as opposed to Exxon Mobil's UN-fairness. He describes Venezuela as "courting" these oil companies, and he's evidently quite bewildered by this, because he says "began quietly courting," and, hey, that communist Chavez abused them with "raids by tax authorities." And here is his coup de grace: "Even now," even with 8 major oil companies from as many countries investing heavily in Venezuela..."EVEN NOW, Venezuela is considered one of the riskiest countries in which to do business of any kind, and a number of major Western oil companies stayed out of the bidding." What is nettling him here is that Exxon Mobil's tactics DIDN'T WORK. And we're only at paragraph #3 of this piece of shit 'journalism.'

(3) The next couple of paragraphs contain initial spin clauses, such as, "Facing a decline in oil revenues and a dearth of foreign investment...". Venezuela is a member of OPEC. Production quotas are collectively agreed upon, to influence oil prices. When oil prices sank to about $40/barrel last year, in the midst of the Bushwhack-instigated worldwide Depression, they all cut production to drive prices back up, and they have succeeded. Oil is now about twice what the Chavez government budgeted for ($40/barrel) in their very conservative 2010-2011 budgets. They are "sitting pretty" in this and many other respects, due to excellent management of the oil and of the economy in general. It is a rightwing corpo-fascist "talking point" that Venezuelan oil production was reduced because the 'communists' in charge in Venezuela couldn't produce oil, and that the decline in oil revenues was somehow caused by the Chavez government and not the Bush Junta in Washington!

This is followed by spin clause #2: "In an unusual display of warmth given his friction with Washington..." (...Chavez greeted Chevron's exec cheerily). The irony of this clause is probably not intended. (Romero isn't that bright.) But, since when are Washington's and Chevron's interests so identical that a glowering frown from "Washington" must necessarily mean a glowering frown by Chavez at "Chevron"? Since Bush/Cheney? That funny bit aside, Romero's use of the word "unusual" betrays just how ignorant/biased he is, how "out of the loop" he is in South America and the second-hand nature of what we are getting from him here. Chavez has been a tough bargainer on behalf of his people. He won on every point. Why shouldn't he display warmth to those who agreed to Venezuela's terms?

(4) "...like the seizure last month of stores controlled by the French retailer Casino, which appears to have scared foreign investors." Romero hammers home his extremely biased agenda point once again--"EVEN NOW..." Venezuela is "bad investment." Even now, with two thirds of the Orinoco Belt now in development, by 8 major foreign oil investors from as many countries. He fudges his lack of facts with the slithery word "appears" ("appears to have scared"). And of course this slimebag doesn't mention that Casino broke the law!

(5) A key propaganda phrase in this paragraph (which begins, "A contract for a third area in the Orinoco Belt was not awarded...".) is "Mr. Chavez's national oil company." PDVSA is NOT "Mr. Chavez's" oil company. It is Venezuela's oil company. Jeez. It is part of this and other slimebag journalists' propaganda campaign against Venezuelan democracy and economic fairness to personalize everything that happens in Venezuela, to feed their bogeyman "Chavez the dictator." And where does Mr. Simon Romero get the information that the third portion of the Orinoco Belt not being awarded "reflects" the "reluctance of other oil companies to take part in the auction"? What is this based on? Did he ask Chavez? Did he ask PDVSA? Does he quote anybody on this speculation, or give even a hint of a source? Who is whispering in his ear? This is crap until proven otherwise. (I wouldn't be surprised if Exxon Mobil was "reluctant" to sign a deal that didn't give them ALL the profits plus a boot on the necks of Venezuelan leftists but Romero provides no evidence that this is the case, with Exxon Mobil or anybody else.) And, again, what is really going on here is that the Chavez government has gotten one of the best deals possible for the Venezuelan people, by assertion of Venezuelan's sovereignty. Romero describes this as Chevron and Repsol "ceding control" of "their ventures" --as if these corporations had sovereign rights over Venezuela's oil because they happen to be multi-billion dollar corporations. Money does not create sovereignty. They are "ceding" nothing. They have nothing TO cede!

(6) This paragraph (which begins, "The dependence on oil has grown more acute during Mr. Chávez’s 11 years in power...") contains two baldfaced lies, following the black hole in the previous paragraph (--VZ dependent on oil for 90% of exports), which omits the fact of VZ's sizzling economic growth of 10% over the previous five year period (2003-2008), with the most growth in the private sector not including oil, and the fact that VZ's government budget is 50% oil revenues. The 90% number sounds scary and bad, until you look at it in context.

The two baldfaced lies are these, and both are whoppers: 1) The REASON for MORE use of the oil revenues by Venezuela is that the Chavez government re-negotiated the oil contracts, to change a 10/90 theft by the multinationals into a 60/40 boon for Venezuela and its social and development programs! This is not "acute dependence." This is PUTTING THINGS RIGHT. Venezuelans SHOULD benefit more from their oil! And, 2) The Chavez government undertook devaluation of the bolivar VOLUNTARILY from an excellent financial position of low debt, high cash reserves and rising oil prices. It was NOT a "forced devaluation," as this rotter alleges. And that is why the devaluation resulted in Venezuela's ratings at Standard & Poor and other financial indexes GOING UP! Because it was not forced, it resulted in Venezuela being UPGRADED. Romero tries to combine this lie with the rest of the thunderous chant from the right--inflation! blackouts!--to try to create a picture of Venezuela falling to pieces. It is a bent, distorted, photoshopped picture, to accompany a false narrative of failure and incompetence--an absurd, laughable change of narratives from "Chavez the dictator."

(7) Can anything be more spun than this crap about "Chavez the chameleon"? At least Romero deigns to provide a source and a quote (from VZ's chief regional oil rival, Brazil).

(8) (Paragraph beginning, "Some private energy executives...," and the following paragraph): Note the switch from Romero's summary of the views of "energy executives" to "energy analysts" in the next paragraph. Also, he says "energy executives here." Where is 'here" to Simon Romero? The "energy executives here" dis the new oil deals, say that maybe they can be sabotaged (ahem, won't work out) and are probably rival companies who lost out on the bids, or Exxon Mobil, sulking in its tent. Romero then spins the Chavez government's negotiations with YET MORE countries and companies--China, Belarus, Russia, Italy and Vietnam--into a negative because they haven't yet signed. And he furthermore missed the news last week that Italy's ENI just signed an oil deal with the Chavez government. Or he just wants to pile on, to make his propaganda point, that "EVEN NOW..."--even with the Chavez government signing 8 companies from as many countries, and negotiating with 5 more--one of which was announced last week (Italy)--it's all going to fall apart and not work and fail and be incompetent and go to hell in a handbasket, because "Simon says."

One more point, re Footnote (6), about "galloping inflation" and "intensifying electricity blackouts." ("Venezuela is also struggling with a galloping inflation rate of 27 percent, the highest in Latin America, and intensifying electricity blackouts. (6)") "Galloping inflation" is a stock phrase from the old Kissinger days of destroying Latin American economies. Inflation is a problem in Venezuela, but it is important to know what caused the inflation. It is the direct result of five years of worker-friendly, sizzling economic growth. Venezuela has an 8% unemployment rate--an astonishing accomplishment in the midst of a worldwide depression. And all that economic growth in the private sector, combined with the high oil prices during the 2003 to 2008 period, and better tax collection, put Venezuela into a very solid financial position, facing that Bushwhack horror. If Chavez were a "dictator," he'd solve inflation by fiat. The few punishments his government has meted out, to price-gouging businesses such as Casino (which sells food), have been met with howls of protest from the right and with snipery from corpo-fascist 'running dogs' like Romero. Chavez is NOT a "dictator," so he can't solve the "problems" created by sizzling growth overnight.

As for "intensifying blackouts"--the second plank of the rightwing chant (the third is crime)--Venezuela is dealing with a disastrous drought that has hit a large swath of the Amazon basin--including Ecuador (which also had blackouts) and Colombia (which has had catastrophic fires among other impacts). California, New York and other places have had blackouts. Many places have had natural disasters impacting services of various kinds. This is nothing new in government, and, in fact, the blackouts are NOT "intensifying" in Venezuela. The blackouts in Caracas were halted. And the rest of the problem is being regulated with "rolling blackouts" and negotiations with energy-intense industries and businesses. Romero is simply piling on--as part of this false narrative that, now, after 11 years of 60% approval ratings and equally large electoral victories, Chavez and his government have somehow become "incompetent." And it is a "Big Lie" technique--indeed, a Stalinist "Big Lie" technique--that if they repeat this often enough, it will somehow become reality. Weird that our corpo-fascists have become Stalinist-type propagandists, but there you are. They have repeatedly been telling Big Lies about Chavez and Venezuela since the U.S.-supported coup attempt failed eight years ago, and because every other U.S. effort to overthrow Venezuelan democracy has failed. The New York Slimes and the CIA are the incompetent ones, not Chavez.

[bemildred]

1. "President Chávez is not about to hand authority over to anyone who is not a known loyalist."

LOL, "known loyalists". Maybe even "card carrying loyalists". "Tell me Sir, are you now or have you ever been a loyalist?"

Clearly, Chavez is unfair to traitors and enemies.

[Peace Patriot]

3. Thanks for your comment! Nice catch on the McCarthyite language.

I think the bullies, liars, propagandists and egocentric, authoritarian personalities who write the media narratives for our corpo-fascist rulers are guilty of a lot of psychological projection when it comes to Chavez. The things they allege against Chavez are their own deep character flaws. This might have an unconscious element to it, but it is also part of the "Big Lie" propaganda method to assert the opposite of the truth, and do this repeatedly, until the hearers' brains are mush and can't sort out lie and reality. The Chavez government is the MOST democratic, AND the most competent, government Venezuela has ever had--and one of the most democratic and competent in the western hemisphere. Ergo, they assert the exact opposite, over and over and over again, to fuzz peoples' brains. ("Chavez is a dictator," "Chavez is incompetent and Venezuela is falling apart.") And even quite intelligent and normally alert people can succumb to relentless, pervasive "Big Lies" coming at them from every direction.

[protocol rv]

6. What is a traitor? What is an enemy?

I wonder, what do you define as a traitor? Do you think it's proper to limit employment in a state enterprise to individuals who support the regime? Or would it be OK with you if they say they oppose the regime and will vote against the ruling party in forthcoming elections? Do you think those who oppose the party in power are "traitors"?

[bemildred]

7. Treason to what? Enemy of whom?

But yes, yes I do think it is proper to limit employment in any enterprise to individuals that support that enterprise, that can be relied on not to sabotage it.

[protocol rv]

8. So you think opposition to the government means sabotage?

Interesting. So you think individuals who say they vote against the government should be accused of being potential saboteurs, and therefore they should be excluded from jobs in a state enterprise?

Do you realize what your comment means when the state owns most large enteprises? What do you think this does for democracy if people are forced, so they can eat, to join the government's party? Have you thought about the consequences, and whether it's realistic to say such a regime is a "democracy" any more?

It would seem to me what you advocate is no longer something one can call a democracy. At best it's an oligarchy in which the "socialist" party nomenklatura lives very well, makes all the decisions, and maneuvers to block the expression of popular will. In other words, what we have seen in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Viet Nam, Cuba, and other "workers' paradises".

[bemildred]

10. Opposition to the government is entirely legal and a fundamental right

but it does not obligate the government to give you a job, or to otherwise assist you in thwarting its efforts or replacing it with people you prefer.

[ChangoLoa]

11. It should be

And the govt shouldn't be allowed by the tribunals to fire people from the administration because they appear in an illegal list of 4 million people who "signed against the president". That list was illegally obtained by a chavista deputy (Tascon) from the "independent" National Electoral Council.

You can easily imagine the kind of precedent it creates in a State-centered country such as Venezuela.

[Wilms]

12. And the link for that is...

:hi:

[ChangoLoa]

15. You need links for Lista Tascon?

Pro-Chavez links:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/1072

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/1136

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/1093

Opposition links:
http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2006/02/la-lista-story-of-venezuela.html

http://www.youtube.com/user/CiudadaniaActiva#p/search/0/aFE0na_MecA

http://frrodriguez.web.wesleyan.edu/docs/press/chavez_list.pdf

Chavez calling for identifying inconstant chavista voters who benefit from the social programs and "hard" opposition voters (spanish):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKuM0IIxr88

[bemildred]

13. OK, they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

I do agree that ordinary people should not lose their jobs for participation in legitimate political processes; assuming for the moment that all you say is true, I would criticize that sort of thing. Not that I would expect any such immunity to protect me here in the USA either, but it ought to, I can agree to that.

On the other hand, the government has no obligation to hire or keep people in positions of authority that oppose it, that cannot be relied on to support its program and the success of its initiatives. If one is to have a government, it ought to govern; the ideal is a government that governs well, a government that has power and exercises it well, and you cannot have that if the government is constantly at war with itself over who should be in charge or whether it ought to actually govern according to its principles.

I am curious as to what you think a country should be centered on if not its government? Do you prefer a "failed state" or a "state centered" country? What, in your view should a country be centered on?

[bemildred]

17. FWIW:

1.) A petition to recall a sitting President is a public document, and when you sign it you identify yourself, in fact that is essential to verifying the validity of the petition. Signing it is a public act, and you have no expectation of secrecy about that. In the same way that a government must identify you to allow you to vote, it must identify you to validate your signature on a petition. I think that generally all politics should be done in the light of day anyway, the notion that political activity should be anonymous doesn't stand up to examination. There is a legitimate case for secret balloting, where the government does not know HOW you voted in an election, but in the case of a petition to recall, there is only one choice, you sign it or not, and all of the people who do not sign it have a legitimate interest in seeing that you are who you say you are and that you had a right to sign it. If the law allows that signers of public petitions have some expectations of secrecy, then I would consider that that law is a mistake.

2.) On the other hand, as I said, retribution by the government against anyone for pursuing legal political activity should be illegal, including the signing of a petition of recall for a sitting President.

3.) The government, on the other hand, has no obligation to provide comfort to its enemies. One may be sure that the enemies of Chavez do not make a habit of hiring his supporters, and that, should they ever manage to get elected, the first thing they would do is to clean house in the government and install their own "loyalists".

4.) In the USA we have civil service laws precisely to address these sorts of issues. I don't believe they offer as much protection as I would wish, but they are well thought out.

[ChangoLoa]

19. The secrecy of the signing is guaranteed in our constitution

Which is rather normal in a participative democracy where these petitions are an official electoral act . The govt is not allowed to identify signers, it's the national electoral council's task, which is supposed to be an independent power. It can't communicate the names to the executive power. It is not just a public petition, it is an official electoral act to revoke the president and, obviously, even if by definition a signature is not anonymous, it's still secret and ESPECIALLY to the executive power. If it wasn't secret, it would be an open door to political segregation. And, in this case, the secret was illegally violated.

We're not talking about enemies or traitors here but ordinary citizens.

[bemildred]

21. As I said, I think that's a mistake.

I would say that the facts in this particular case, the publication of the list, support my view. We always have trouble with "leaks" here too. That is why I think it is better to just have it all - by statute - take place in the light of day, in public.

[protocol rv]

23. Nice escape move

Nobody says the government is "obligated to give you a job". The question is whether the government should have a uniform policy to deny employment to individuals who happen not be government supporters.

The problem, you see, is that competent people tend to be professionals, more educated, and middle class. And the middle class tends to vote against the government. This means PDVSA and other state enterprises are populated and managed by personnel who can't do their jobs properly - management is picked for its political credentials and not its mental capacity and/or experience. This applies to all the state enterprises, which as the government nationalizes more and more, are becoming more and more incapable of carrying out their functions.

The nationalization plus politization policies, when coupled, lead to the serious breakdowns we're seeing, with failures in water supply, electricity, health system, roads, crime control, food distribution, economic policy, and of course oil and gas production as well as refining at PDVSA. This is a society which is gradually breaking down, and middle class and professional class flight are becoming more prevalent. This is similar to what happened to Uganda under Idi Amin, when he forced the Hindu immigrants to flee. Or to Cambodia when Pol Pot and his men murdered all the educated people.

Professionals who fake allegiance to the government can be promoted into management, but then they are expected to spend a lot of their time participating in party meetings, or managing things they're not familiar with. An example of the lack of common sense we see was the move to put a grocery market chain, PDVAL, within PDVSA. It's crazy to ask oil company managers who can't tell a banana peel from a steak wrapper to run a grocery chain, so they spend their time discussing how to ship food around the country, rather than how to get oil and gas wells drilled, refineries fixed, and so on.

The reality is a lot uglier than the glowing commentary you read from "Peace Patriot" and regime propaganda media. For somebody like you, a foreigner not familiar with the way things are run in Venezuela, all I can say is, look at the numbers. The inflation rate, the GDP per capita (which is falling for the second year in a row), and other indicators I'm sure you can find with a search engine. The really sad thing is, Chavez started out well, but he has gradually fallen under the spell of Cubans and radical marxists who have convinced him to make Venezuela into another Cuba.

[EFerrari]

26. The Cold War is over. n/t

[bemildred]

39. Escape from what?

Nothing threatens me here, my ego maybe a little, but that's it.

The original point was whether Chavez should give authority to other than "known loyalists". My view is that he has no such obligation, indeed that he would be a fool to give people that want to undermine his government positions of power.

If you want my general views on civil service and the right to participate in politics freely without retribution from the government, please see post #17.

[ChangoLoa]

41. Why the division between loyalists and saboteurs?

Some people just work for the State as technicians, administrators, etc. without militating or plotting.

[bemildred]

42. So, it doesn't apply to everbody?

I would hazard a guess that it doesn't apply to most people, even in Venezuela. Most people just want to get on with their lives anywhere you go.

Nevertheless, it seems like an important distinction to make if you want to run a government, or a company, or any sort of organized activity where some people want you to fail. You don't want people with authority working to undermine your efforts.

Edit: the "known loyalist" idea is not mine, it came from an unattributed link in the OP, apparently someone who doesn't like Chavez.

[ChangoLoa]

43. Look, when the existence of few individuals

plotting, sabotaging, individuals... justifies the political segregation of a whole group of people, whose only point in common is that they don't support the govt, I don't agree anymore. If there are identified plotting, sabotaging individuals, I want them on trial. Not to be kept as convenient ghosts.

[bemildred]

44. Well good, it they did anything like that I would want to see them on trial too. nt

[bemildred]

54. Allies, Enemies, Traitors, Weapons, and Hostages:

"After 10 years as a cryptography/security consultant, I recently
crossed over the line, and became a "security architect" for a
startup. It seemed a good idea at the time, until one day, when I saw
in my inbox an "invitation" to a series of offsite management training
sessions. Oh, _good_: 8.5 hours locked in a room with an HR-type and
an urn full of bad coffee, singing the company song, coloring inside
the lines, practicing the bland, meaning- less smiles... I'll just
catch up with everything else on Tuesday, right?

So, inevitably, in the middle of listening to the usual noise about
how to empower our subordinates (half of us in the room counted
ourselves lucky not to _have_ subor- dinates, but I digress), we
flinched as the the HR-type whipped out the dreaded Meyers-Briggs
test. Yes, even though all of us had taken this personality test more
than once before, in similar self-improvement death- marches, and even
though we all could classify each other as ESTP or INTJ on sight, and
even though we all knew... Well, we had to take it again, and we had
to have our long-familiar "scores" explained to us again, and we all
were very upbeat about it, because after all, this _was_ a
self-_improvement_ deathmarch, and not a deathmarch of some other
variety.

During this mess, I reflected on my own seat-of-the-pants
classification of personality-types, honed and refined during my
decade of teaching crypto-101 to brokerage sysadmins:

I mainly use two orthogonal axes to classify people.

First, everyone is either an Ally, or is not an Ally.
Second, everyone is either an Enemy, or not.

So, we can group people (coworkers, customers, investors, etc.) into
four classes, right-off-the-bat, without any insipid HR testing:

People who are Allies; People who are Enemies;
People who are both; People who are neither.

People who are both Ally and Enemy call themselves "diplomatic," but
of course, they're really just Traitors, or at best just unnecessary
competition. They should handled as briefly as possible, if you get
my drift.

People who are neither Enemy nor Ally like to pretend that they're
just bystanders, but this point-of-view is wasteful of these persons'
great potential, which must properly be "developed." So, I further
subdivide this one group into two categories:

People who can be used as Weapons;
People who can be used as Hostages.

So, instead of M-B's 16 personality-types, I count five:

Allies, Enemies, Traitors, Weapons, and Hostages.

This system of personality-analysis is, I submit, at once more
comprehensive and more useful than the feel-good Meyers-Briggs in many
realistic situations, whether you're in a design review, a
maximum-security prison, or even in an all-day meeting with HR. Well,
OK, that last one isn't strictly a realistic situation. But you get
my drift."

[Peace Patriot]

14. You have a short or very selective memory, protocol rv.

The rightwing in Venezuela...

...perpetrated a rightwing military coup in 2002, whose first acts were to suspend the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights, after kidnapping the elected president and threatening his life;

...then--when the people of Venezuela had peacefully defeated that coup--they perpetrated an oil bosses' lockout in order to cripple the economy and topple the elected government by a different means--a lockout that included sabotage of the oil refining computer system;

...then--when the Chavez government fired the Exxon Mobil-backed traitors in the national oil company and re-established government control--they took USAID funding and advice to mount a recall election against Chavez in 2004 (which Chavez won, hands down);

...then they continued taking USAID funding and "training" to mount rightwing student riots and mayhem;

...and they have all along maintained a shrill, unreasonable, traitorous tone, with shrieks of agony and wild accusations, every time the Chavistas have won transparent, internationally monitored elections and every time the Chavez government has adhered to its mandate by implementing policies that have successfully aimed at a better educated, healthier, more equitable society and that encourage political participation by the previously excluded poor majority and other previously excluded groups (women, gays, African-Venezuelans, the indigenous).

The Chavez government has very good reason to distrust the rightwing minority whose goals are MINORITY RULE, by any means necessary, and enriching themselves at everyone else's expense, and who are closely allied to, funded by and advised by the CIA and its affiliates in Venezuela.

It is an unfortunate situation when there is no "loyal opposition" in a country. We have that situation in the U.S., where traitors to this country have dragged us into illegal, heinous wars for their own benefit, and have looted us into a Great Depression. But we, the people of the U.S.--far more unfortunate than Venezuela--have virtually no champions in government. We are like Venezuela prior to Chavez, with Tweedle-dee/Tweedle-dum parties controlling all power in the interest of the rich and the corporate. The one ruling faction is outright traitorous; the other is elitist and has left the poor majority here without representation.

I would say it's not a great situation, as to democracy, to have no loyal opposition, but given the evil designs of the rightwing in both of our countries, I would prefer a strong, leftist, "New Deal"-like government, like the Chavez government, to what we have--a sniveling, weak "liberal" government on social policy trying to prove itself to the war profiteers and the global corporate predators by perpetuating their Forever War, which will likely be followed by yet more outright traitorous, fascist, Bushwhack government.

The Chavez government has a right and a duty to protect itself from traitorous rightwing operatives. They have been properly and repeatedly elected by big majorities and have the mandate of the people and the Constitutional mandate to implement the policies that they have openly advocated in their political campaigns and to prevent both foreign and domestic sabotage of Venezuelan democracy. I have seen no behavior of the Chavez government that is not typical of populist governments with big mandates--such as the "New Deal" in the U.S. (which, among other things, filled government positions with "New Dealers"!). They have in general scrupulously adhered to the Constitution and the rule of law. It is the rightwing who are the scofflaws and the saboteurs--and furthermore the agents of a foreign power.

The rightwing in Venezuela wants to hand the oil back over to Exxon Mobil, to enrich themselves, and hand the reigns of the Venezuelan government back over to Washington DC. That is what they have repeatedly tried to do, and that is what they will do, if they somehow regain power. It is, again, unfortunate that this is the case. And I'm sure that it has mightily tempted Chavez and his government to step over the line, as to democratic principles, in order to protect democracy and Constitutional government. It also must be difficult, with a big mandate, and no "loyal opposition," to distinguish between promotion of a political point of view and protection of democracy itself. But, for 11 years now, they have shown great restraint. The signers of the Carmona Decree, the RCTV execs who participated in it and the military operatives were all deserving of jail, and those who supported the Carmona Decree deserved to be banned from politics. Did the American revolutionaries allow Tories to run for office and to advocate for the return of British colonial rule? No, they did not. The Chavez government would have been justified in a similar ban, and they did not do it. Further, anyone now accepting USAID or other U.S. funds for political activity is breaking Venezuelan law. Yet the Chavez government has not gone after them. The Chavez government has largely chosen to fight this fight against obvious traitors politically, which is a sign of the strength of their mandate from the Venezuelan people, of their inherent devotion to democracy and of the strength of that democracy. I envy Venezuela that--I envy Venezuela the strength of its democratic institutions. Ours, here, have failed.

[EFerrari]

25. No, sabotage is sabotage.

¿Reimpulso productivo o impulso hacia el abismo?
Por: Leonardo Badell-CMR
Fecha de publicación: 23/06/08

El 11 de abril del 2002 muchos revolucionarios veíamos como la burguesía, sectores del ejército, la Iglesia Católica, medios de comunicación y las clases dominantes llevaban a cabo un espantoso golpe de estado contra el gobierno del Presidente Chávez. En ese momento era evidente el rostro del fascismo contra el pueblo. Murieron militantes chavistas y de izquierda que estaban en puente llaguno y en las zonas aledañas del puente. Los fascistas decidieron colocar en el gobierno de facto al empresario Pedro Carmona Estanga, anterior presidente del gremio empresarial FEDECAMARAS. El odio de la burguesía se manifestó a través de persecuciones, asesinatos, detenciones y el total silencio de las grandes corporaciones comunicativas. Esto lo hicieron en apenas 47 horas que estuvieron en el poder violando todos los derechos humanos. Sin embargo, la movilización de los sectores populares, trabajadores, campesinos en todo el país llevaron a la total derrota de la extrema derecha.

Es muy conocido el paro empresarial de diciembre-enero del 2002-2003, que por cierto recuerdo que nadie lograba encontrar harina para hacer arepas (harina PAN) ni ninguno de los productos de “empresas POLAR”, no se podía ir a los Bancos por que también se sumaron al paro (BANESCO, Banco de Venezuela-Grupo Santander, Mercantil, Provincial), los alimentos escaseaban, pararon PDVSA, pararon las principales empresas e industrias a nivel nacional, sobre todo los principales centros industriales del país (Aragua, Carabobo, Anzoátegui, Puerto Ordaz, Zulia, Falcón, Monagas, ) dejando sin alimentos, sin medicinas, sin asistencia médica, sin gas, y con una increíble y excéntrica campaña contra el gobierno del Presidente Chávez: dos meses consecutivos sin parar, día y noche pidiendo la renuncia del Presidente. Por los medios vimos a todos los empresarios que hacen vida en FEDECAMARAS: Lorenzo Mendoza, Ignacio Salvatierra, Gustavo Cisneros (un empresario global ¿se acuerdan?). A los empresarios se les sumo la anterior cúpula sindical corrupta de la CTV (Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela) y la Sacrosanta Madre Iglesia Catolica-apostolica y romana.

Los militares fascistas estaban en la plaza Francia de Altamira esperando a que los militares de rangos medios se les sumaran… claro, esperaron sentados para no cansarse ya que muy pocos se les sumaron. Sin embargo otros más inteligentes hicieron una gira a nivel nacional para decir lo que pensaban. Decían: “el problema de fondo no es Chávez, es el chavismo. Para extirpar el mal desde la raíz, es necesario acabar con él chavismo totalmente. No es suficiente matar a Chávez” (1) Los militares se daban cuenta de que el paro no salía como ellos querían a pesar del gran despliegue mediático a nivel nacional e internacional que colocaba como un sector de la pequeño-burguesía y de los ricos eran víctimas de las hordas salvajes chavistas. Los militares golpistas y la derecha se daban cuenta que no contaban con un factor muy importante para poder hacer una huelga general: la clase obrera. Mientras los empresarios prometían villas y castillos para que los trabajadores cerraran las fábricas, los trabajadores las abrían, mientras los gerentes de PDVSA trataban de paralizar la industria petrolera los trabajadores en muchos sectores a nivel nacional la ponían a producir como El Palito, Jose o las principales refinerías del país. En Aragua los trabajadores de POLAR tomaron la empresa para ponerla a producir, lo mismo los trabajadores de POLAR en los Cortijos en Caracas. Luego se sumaron los trabajadores de Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, SIDOR, VENALUM, ALCASA, FERROMINERA. Cientos de empresas en todo el territorio nacional fueron abiertas por los trabajadores. Quizás fue la experiencia de control obrero más grande de la historia de Venezuela. Ya para la fecha del 23 de enero del 2003 la clase trabajadora, los campesinos y los sectores populares demostraban quien tenía el control en ese momento y lo demostraron en una gigantesca marcha (quizás la más militante de toda la historia del chavismo) que culmino en la Avenida Bolívar. Recuerdo que los sectores de la burguesía estaban totalmente aterrorizados: en Globovisión y en RCTV pasaban ¡COMO HACER BOMBAS DE AGUA CONGELADAS PARA USARLAS CONTRA LAS HORDAS CHAVISTAS!, los riquitos levantaron las tapas de las alcantarillas, hicieron barricadas con alambres de púas, y habían sifrinos (2) armados hasta los dientes en las azoteas de los edificios donde viven los ricos. El terror se apodero de la burguesía.

La gran mayoría de trabajadores rompieron totalmente con la asquerosa burocracia sindical de la CTV. El paro se vino abajo, todo estaba listo para la toma del poder expropiando a la burguesía sus empresas, sus fábricas, sus industrias. En ese momento la dirección del movimiento bolivariano pudo haber tomado totalmente el poder económico apoyado por las masas… pero no se hizo. El Presidente Chávez pudo haber tomado el poder económico, pudo haber barrido a la burguesía… pero no lo hizo, pues todo tenía que mantenerse “dentro del marco de la constitución y las leyes”. Este evento se repetiría en las elecciones del referéndum del 2004, en las elecciones del 2006 (donde las movilizaciones fueron masivas). Una y otra vez los más (obreros, campesinos pobres y sectores populares) se movilizaron para derrotar a los menos (empresarios, iglesia católica y los medios de comunicación de la derecha) con un gran nivel de conciencia y de militancia.

http://www.aporrea.org/ideologia/a59334.html

[Judi Lynn]

35. That's really scary, invoking the image of "known loyalists."

No doubt it summons the feverish accusatory bellows, ravings of a still-drunken, dead from alcoholism, Joseph McCarthy.

http://www.nisd.net.nyud.net:8090/marshall/WebQuests/Cold%20War/USAmccarthy3.jpg

"I have here the list of known loyalists."

[bemildred]

38. It's not that scary, but it indicates a certain mindset.

Pretty much rules out being the "loyal opposition" for example, doesn't see politics are a debate between equals for the support of the electorate.

[Peace Patriot]

2. Just wanted to note the unusual number of "views" of this post--517 views!

I've never had so many views of a post of mine--and have rarely seen that many for other posts. I guess I wrote a good subject line! But I am surprised that there are so few comments, given the number of "views." Does no one else besides Bemildred have anything to say about the outrageous anti-Chavez spin from the New York Slimes or the sillyputty doom and gloom from the Hairball? Anybody agree/disagree with my analysis? Anybody read it? Is it too long? What?

I think it's pretty ironical that the corpo-fascist MEME for the last, oh, six months, has been the Chavez FAILURE script, and yet here is Venezuela announcing eight major oil contracts for development of two thirds of the Orinoco Belt. Where are all the lying or uninformed prognosticators who said nobody will invest in Venezuela because its leftist government is such a FAILURE?

Those of us who have been studying FACTS are not surprised by this victory of Chavez oil policy; those who deal in SPIN, like Romero, are spitting tacks trying to "explain" how it's really a failure. This would be amusing if it weren't so vicious.

Anyway, I'm just kind of curious why so many people would open this post--and so few comment on it. Maybe the subject line was not so good--maybe it mislead people to expect something else? I don't know. I'm mystified.

[autorank]

4. You're messing with their story line

:sarcasm:
MSM is the PR office for their masters. You need to repsect the story that they're telling about Venezuela. They may not want to invade right now, but they want that options open. More importantly, they need to degrade Chavez - he didn't attend Harvard School of Government or even School of the Americas. So get it straight. It took them PTB a long time to put their media control in place and they don't plan to stop anytime soon!

Seriously, this is bookmarked for future reference and also study. You've constructed a great case study of the fools that govern us and how they attempt to control impressions and create reality against facts.

Thanks!

[dipsydoodle]

5. Thanks for the work you put into this.

:thumbsup:

[ChangoLoa]

9. Chewbacconomics from the outer galaxy again?

The top 3:

(1) "Chavez's devaluation was voluntary": I wonder how would look an involuntary devaluation in a fixed and controlled exchange rate context... "President gives involuntary order for devaluation during his sleep. Says he's sorry to be a somnambulist".

I wonder how can any progressive defend a one-blow, non gradual devaluation. It's a regressive form of tax because it doesn't distinguish between different levels of income. The less money you have, the more you're affected by this measure. The "upper-middles class" will be the least hurt in this process. 2010 is an electoral year and the administration needs to keep the illusion of the oil shock period level of public spending, but in reality Venezuela is dealing with the recession by applying a restrictive budgetary policy since the real value of the expenses is decreasing. This is highly pro-cyclic. It's obvious that S&P, J.P Morgan and the IMF are applauding when their doctrine is being applied. I didn't expect you to be on that Washington Consensus line.


(2) Venezuela's oil production is stagnant because of... OPEC quotas: the Venezuelan govt has been constantly announcing its plan to drive the production to 5MB/day. In 1999, they said it was for 2005, in 2005 they said 2010, and last year they said 2015. Actually, OPEC quotas don't work as you think they do. We could have driven the production up until the 2008 oil bust and THEN apply the % reduction on that basis. But, the FACTS are that our production (hence our oil GDP in constant prices) has slightly decreased since this govt started (long before the oil bust and the quotas). We just managed in 2008 to bring it back to a similar 1998 level.
http://www.opec.org/library/Annual%20Statistical%20Bulletin/interactive/2008/FileZ/XL/T13.HTM
So all the agreements you're highlighting... it's just paper until now.


(3) Venezuela's growth between 2003-2008 happened in the non oil private sector so... it wasn't because of the historical record oil shock but thanks to good government:
Venezuela's de-growth in 2009 happened in the non oil private sector too so... is it because of bad government and not because of the decrease in oil prices?
You need to apply the same logic for both tendencies, otherwise it's double standard.
Do you understand the mechanics of growth during an oil shock in Venezuela? Do you know the meaning of using constant prices or current prices for accounting GDP?

Some indications:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=25833&mesg_id=25954

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=405&topic_id=28010&mesg_id=28152

[Peace Patriot]

16. Welcome to "Alice in Wonderland"--the upside down, backwards world of the anti-Chavistas

the white roses get painted red!

The devaluation was VOLUNTARY--and implemented from a sound financial position. That is WHY it resulted in an UPGRADING of Venezuela's status on the S&P and other indexes.

An involuntary devaluation is not pretty. It means a country has been busted. The Chavez government had low debt, high cash reserves, good credit, high employment and rising oil prices. They were not busted. They were not forced to devalue the bolivar.

But you now want to reverse that wise move, undertaken in good conditions, and furthermore layered to favor domestic production and disfavor imports, because it favors the middle class, in your opinion? (It doesn't favor their Gucci bags, however.)

That is jabberwocky. You want it both ways and you are therefore speaking nonsense.

[ChangoLoa]

18. Palinesque

You don't get it. A devaluation can't be "involuntary" in a fixed change regime with forex control. So, obviously, it was voluntary. Keep in mind that our government was promising until october/november 2009 that there would be no need for devaluation.

Things aren't the binary way you present them ("both ways"). There was a third option called "gradual devaluation" and it could have been applied slowly since the oil bust started.

Actually, let me ask you a question: what does it mean to you when a government "is forced" to devalue in a fixed change regime with forex control?
You get the point of "lowering fiscal pressure"?

The main goal of a devaluation in an oil country such as Venezuela, where more than half of the govt's money is in US$, is not to increase price-competitiveness of the domestic economy. From 1999 to 2010, the devaluation of the bolivar has already been of 700% (for the 4.3 rate) and 450% (for the subsidized rate). It hasn't "disfavored imports" at all. The main goal is to increase the value of the govt's US$ in bolivares, in order to meet the nominal fiscal compromise with lower real value. The govt takes from the value of people's savings to increase the purchasing power of its US$. "Lower fiscal pressures"

It is the most regressive form of tax because it doesn't distinguish between people. A real IMF-style one-blow big devaluation like in the 80's-90's that you're defending along with S&P (!) and Moody's (!).
:thumbsdown:

[Peace Patriot]

20. I stand by you want it both ways. You want us to believe that the Chavez government is,

somehow, after five straight years of growth, accumulation of $50 billion total in international cash reserves, low debt, good credit, low unemployment, full funding of social programs, renegotiation of the oil contracts to favor Venezuela (and recent announcement of big oil contracts with 8 companies from as many countries), transparent elections and resistance to U.S./local coups and destabilization tactics--that, somehow, the Chavez government has become incompetent and Venezuela unstable--and when they take a further, voluntary, wise stability action, such as the devaluation of the bolivar, you get all lefty on us and dis S&P?

You want it both ways. You wanted it to get to the point of a forced devaluation, in bad conditions, so you could dis the Chavez government about that. And you are steaming that they took the wise road and not yours.

[ChangoLoa]

22. You forgot how to read.

I'm sorry for that. Gradual devaluation... in order to avoid a brutal regressive one... never mind, keep your IMF line. At least be conscious of what you're defending.

Stop pretending you represent a moral authority on leftist politics and points of view.

I don't get "all lefty on you", I know that politically I stand at your left, dear Democrat. I don't like military leaders in politics, because I know my Latin-American history. I worship no idol neither, because I never feel such huge trust and faith for systems of power. If you want to discuss those things, that's all good, but please stop deflecting things so childishly by saying "right-winger! right-winger!". It's ridiculous and useless. Quit your flock.



BTW, here's the govt announcing that devaluation was not an option last october (do you speak a little Spanish at least?):
http://www.minuto59.com/2009/10/araque-asegura-que-no-habra-devaluacion-del-bolivar/

[EFerrari]

24. If you knew your Latin American history, you'd know that the military

used to be one of the most democratic institutions in most of these countries and that many good leaders who came from nothing used the military as a springboard into public life. Oh, and:

Fitch Affirms Petroleos de Venezuela's IDR at 'B+'

Press Release Source: Fitch Ratings On Wednesday February 10, 2010, 12:31 pm EST

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Fitch has affirmed the following ratings of Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA):

--Foreign currency Issuer Default Rating (IDR) at 'B+';

--Local currency IDR at 'B+';

--USD3 billion outstanding zero coupon notes (due 2011) at 'B+/RR4';

--USD1.4 billion outstanding senior notes (due 2014) at 'B+/RR4';

--USD1.4 billion outstanding senior notes (due 2015) at 'B+/RR4';

--USD435 million outstanding senior notes (due 2016) at 'B+/RR4';

--USD3 billion outstanding senior notes (due 2017) at 'B+/RR4';

--USD3 billion outstanding senior notes (due 2027) at 'B+/RR4';

--USD1.5 billion outstanding senior notes (due 2037) at 'B+/RR4';

--Long-term national scale rating at 'AAA(ven)'.

The Rating Outlook is Stable.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Fitch-Affirms-Petroleos-de-bw-1023560655.html?x=0&.v=1

[ChangoLoa]

30. Oh come on

The military kept "preparing our society to democracy" for 130 years

[EFerrari]

32. That's what I thought. EDIT

You have no idea what you're talking about.

An object lesson, the bio of my grandfather's good friend.



Lázaro Cárdenas del Río (May 21, 1895 – October 19, 1970) was President of Mexico from 1934 to 1940.

Lázaro Cárdenas was born into a lower-middle class family in the village of Jiquilpan, Michoacán. He supported his family (including his mother and seven younger siblings) from age 16 after the death of his father. By the age of 18 he had worked as a tax collector, a printer's devil, and a jailkeeper. Although he left school at the age of eleven, he used every opportunity to educate himself and read widely throughout his life, especially works of history.

Cárdenas set his sights on becoming a teacher, but was drawn into politics and the military during the Mexican Revolution after Victoriano Huerta overthrew President Francisco Madero. He backed Plutarco Elías Calles, and after Calles became president, Cárdenas became governor of Michoacán in 1928. He became known for his progressive program of building roads and schools, promoting education, land reform and social security.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A1zaro_C%C3%A1rdenas

[Judi Lynn]

34. "an authentic revolutionary who aspired to the greatness of his country,not personal aggrandizement"

The best thing which can be said of a country's President.

Your grandfather chose an impeccable friend in Cárdenas.

Mexico benefited vastly from his service.

Thanks for sharing this info. with us, EFerrari. It's stunning.

[EFerrari]

36. A man who came from nothing, served and used that as a springboard

to serve more widely and democratically.

[Judi Lynn]

37. We don't get a lot of similar stories here, do we?

What was I thinking? There's Ronald Reagan. No, wait. Forget that.

Here's something interesting I stumbled across, a statement concerning Lázaro Cárdenas, in his native language, and Spanish:

This text was written in the Mösiehuali (Tetelcingo Nahuatl - nhg) language, about the year 1976 or 1977. It tells of General Lázaro Cárdenas, President of México from 1934-1940, and of the relationship between him and the town of Tetelcingo, and particularly the author, Martín Méndez Huaxcuatitla. Ru Marti (as he was known in Mösiehuali) loved to tell this story, and at the urging of Richard S. Pittman he typed up the original of this document. One can almost hear the gusto with which he used to pronounce such resounding phrases as “ca iorden del Señor Presidente Don Lázaro Cárdenas” ‘by order of the lord President Sir Lázaro Cárdenas.’ (090).

This account is of considerable historical value because of the authentic view it gives, from an indigenous perspective, of one of the greatest figures of Mexican history; and also because of its description of the beginning of the friendship between Cárdenas and William Cameron Townsend, which was of such importance to the beginnings of the Summer Institute of Linguistics.*

http://www.sil.org/~tuggyd/Tetel/F001i-Cardenas-NHG.htm

[ChangoLoa]

40. Are you kidding me?

THE MILITARY... "one of the most democratic institutions in most of these countries"
And you pull out the magic Lázaro Cárdenas with a wikipicture.

Do you really need counter-examples?
There are some more you know.

I repeat it: I don't like my government and State institutions controlled by the military and even less in 2010.

You're just amalgamating. Good for your grandpa, I mean it.

[EFerrari]

47. There are no counter examples because my claim was very specific.

You are conflating "leaders who come out of the military" with "military control".

[ChangoLoa]

51. Too specific and gibberish. The topic being Latin American history, there are many counter-examples

Your last answer makes no sense, bringing your idea that the military are one of the most democratic institutions in the history of LA to the simple example of Lazaro Cardenas is a funny method.

I'm talking about MILITARY CONTROL, not about the fact that Chavez came out of the military.
The state has become militarized: most ministers and high administrators are military and state workers are being organized in militias and trained, while every state institution has to participate.

Military control it's called.

[protocol rv]

27. Get your facts straight, please

Venezuela's GDP fell in 2009, and continues to fall in 2010. Therefore the "five straight years of growth" is quite misleading.

Foreign reserves never reached $50 billion, they have been dropping:

http://www.latin-focus.com/latinfocus/countries/venezuela/venresv.htm

Debt is increasing, Venezuela's credit rating is lousy

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aHERnnIka3do

Don't focus much on the plunge statement, look at the spread. Venezuelan bonds are yielding around 14 % interest. Maybe some of you rich Americans want to take the risk, and buy these Venezuelan bonds? The interest they pay is quite attractive, isn't it? But do you know why they are paying such a high interest? Because they're considered to have a high default risk. The market is watching the Venezuelan economy, and it's betting against it.

Should we keep on? the Real unemployment rate is high (there's a lot of "informal employment" which one can hardly call employment, since it fails to provide health coverage, unemployment coverage, or retirement of any sort).

The renegotiation of contracts isn't exactly a big coup, lots of countries do it, and do it a lot better. It also resulted in a drop in oil production and therefore oil exports.

You want more? Election results are ignored by the government (as they have done with the Caracas Metropolitan area when it elected an oppposition leader), and the devaluation was inevitable - they did a lousy job by waiting so long, and anybody who understands basic economic principles realizes that an overvalued currency is poison.

[EFerrari]

28. Hmm. Venezuela bonds up on devaluation; Femsa drags Mexico

Jan. 11, 2010, 6:44 p.m. EST

By Laura Mandaro, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Venezuelan dollar bonds gained Monday after President Hugo Chavez devalued the country's currency, suggesting tighter future control over the budget deficit, while Mexican stocks were pressured by a sharp drop in Femsa shares.

Venezuela's dollar-denominated bonds rallied, with spreads for 5-year global bonds falling to 873 basis points from 998 basis points Friday, according to Win Thin, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman.

Lower spreads indicate investors are demanding less yield to hold those bonds. One basis point is equal to 1/100th of a percentage point.

"We see devaluation as a positive market signal," wrote analysts at Deutsche Securities,noting it should reduce pressure on the government to issue debt and help national oil company PDVSA, which makes most of its sales in U.S. dollars but books costs in the local currency.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/venezuela-bonds-up-on-devaluation-mexico-falters-2010-01-11

[Peace Patriot]

29. Thanks for these facts, EFerarri! Some folks try to sucker other folks with half truths.

Their "meme" is now "Chavez the incompetent" (since "Chavez the dictator" dissolved in "Wonderland"), and they will stick with it, regardless of the evidence and will put all kinds of bits and pieces of indigested information forward, on this, just as they did on "Chavez the dictator."

[EFerrari]

31. They are wasting their time here.

:)

[protocol rv]

50. And Venezuelan bonds remain low rated

So what do you think is going to happen now? Asking workers to pray for rain isn't a practical solution. Being atheist, I'm pretty sure nobody's God is going to send rain. If I were Chavez, I would raise the price of electricity, offer a cash rebate to cover the increased cost, and start serious rationing in Caracas. It's a shame they'll end up doing it too late, the same way they devalued the Bolivar too late.

[protocol rv]

48. Nevertheless, Venezuelan Bonds remain low rated

The evidence is in the numbers. I wonder, how long do you think we have before all the lights go out? I hear they're holding prayers at the dam, and they may decide to accept electricity from Colombia after all.

[protocol rv]

45. Venezuellan Bonds remain low rated

The basis point spread you quote keeps Venezuelan bonds in a low-rated class - high risk bonds paying 13 %. Check the ratings for Brazil, Chile, Colombia, or other strong economies in the region.

[protocol rv]

52. Wrong again

Cash reserves peaked at $42 billion. Debt is going up. Credit is drying up - I've already mentioned the problem we have with the low bond ratings. I wonder which social programs you think are fully funded? Try going to a public hospital, or check the amount of garbage on the streets of Caracas in the area controlled by Chavistas. The Chavez government IS incompetent. The devaluation took too long, and the economy is taking a hard hit, and inflation is awful, crime is really bad and getting worse.

Care to comment?

[Judi Lynn]

33. Great accumulation of true bilge focusing on Venezuela's elected President.

Everyone can always expect delusional raving from the Miami Herald regarding leftist Latin American, Caribbean leaders. They never disappoint their wealthy Cuban racist reactionary elitist and Venezuelan elitist readership. They learned a long time ago what happens when they anger them, and start getting bomb threats to the publisher, his family, the entire staff at the Herald, accompanied by jamming up the paper vending machines all over the town with gum, then smearing them with feces, advertising everywhere in town warning citizens they can't believe the Herald, to the point the publisher and his wife must hire bomb detection specialists to check out their cars EVERY TIME they want to start them.

The Miami Herald is a constant anti-leftist noise, it will always be. Too many hated-at-home fascist, racist, criminal types have had to flee there when their power was diminished or repudiated in their countries.

Some comments on Simon Romero's employer which emphasize their own style of "journalism":

June 20, 2007

The New York Times vs. Hugo Chavez
The Record of the Newspaper of Record
By STEPHEN LENDMAN

~snip~
This article focuses on one example of Times duplicity among many other prominent ones equally sinister and disturbing - its venomous agitprop targeting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez this writer calls the leading model democratic leader on the planet even though he's not perfect, nor is anyone else. That's why after "Islamofascist terrorists" he's practically "enemy number one" on the Times hit list and Washington's. Besides Venezuela being oil rich, Chavez is the greatest of all threats the US faces - a good example that's spreading. His governance shows how real social democracy works exposing the fake American kind.

~snip~
The New York Times has an ugly record bashing Hugo Chavez since he was elected with a mandate to make participatory social democracy the cornerstone of his presidency. That's anathema to Washington and its chief media ally, the New York Times. Since 1999 when he took office, it hammered Chavez with accusations of opposing the US-sponsored Free Trade of the Americas (FTAA) without explaining it would sell out to big capital at the expense of his people if adopted.

Following his election in December, 1998, Times Latin American reporter Larry Roher wrote: (Latin American) presidents and party leaders are looking over their shoulders (worried about the) specter....the region's ruling elite thought they had safely interred: that of the populist demagogue, the authoritarian man on horseback known as the caudillo (strongman)."

The Times later denounced him for using petrodollars for foreign aid to neighbors, equating promoting solidarity, cooperation and respecting other nations' sovereignty with subversion and buying influence. It criticized his raising royalties and taxes on foreign investors, never explaining it was to end their longtime preferential treatment making them pay their fair share as they should. It bashed him for wanting his own people to benefit most from their own resources, not predatory oil and other foreign investors the way it was before Chavez took office. No longer, and that can't be tolerated in Washington or on the pages of the New York Times.

When state oil company PDVSA became majority shareholder with foreign investors May 1 with a minimum 60% ownership in four Orinoco River basin oil projects, the Times savaged Chavez. It condemned his "revolutionary flourish (and his) ambitious (plan to) wrest control of several major oil projects from American and European companies (with a) showdown (ahead for these) coveted energy resources...." Unmentioned was these resources belong to the Venezuelan people. The Times also accuses Chavez of allowing "politics and ideology" to drive US-Venezuelan confrontation "to limit American influence around the world, starting in Venezuela's oil fields."

It calls him "divisive, a ruinous demagogue, provocative (and) the next Fidel Castro." It savored the 2002 aborted two day coup ousting him calling it a "resignation" and that Venezuela "no longer (would be) threatened by a would-be dictator." It reported he "stepped down (and was replaced by (a) respected business leader" (Pedro Carmona - president of Fedecamaras, the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce).

Unmentioned was that Carmona was hand-picked in Washington and by Venezuelan oligarchs to do their bidding at the expense of the people. He proved his bona fides by suspending the democratically elected members of the National Assembly and crushing Bolivarian Revolutionary Constitutional reforms, quickly restored once Chavez was reinstated in office. Carmona fled to Colombia seeking political asylum from where Venezuela's Supreme Court now wants him extradited on charges of civil rebellion. Unmentioned also was that the Times had to dismiss one of its Venezuelan reporters, Francisco Toro, in January, 2003 when Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) revealed he was an anti-Chavista activist masquerading as an objective journalist.

~snip~
Times business columnist Roger Lowenstein is on board to make it happen. He claims, with no substantiation, Chavez "militarized the government, emasculated the country's courts, intimidated the media, eroded confidence in the economy and hollowed out Venezuela's once-democratic institutions." Turn this on its head to know the truth Lowenstein won't report - that Chavez militarized nothing. He put his underutilized military to work implementing Venezuela's Plan Bolivar 2000 constructing housing for the poor, building roads, conducting mass vaccinations, and overall serving people needs, not invading and occupying other countries and threatening to flatten other "uncooperative" ones.

Venezuela's courts function independently of the democratically elected President and National Assembly. The media is the freest and most open in the region and the world with most of it corporate owned as it is nearly everywhere. Further, business is booming enough to get the Financial Times to say bankers were having "a party," and the country never had a functioning democracy until Hugo Chavez made it flourish there.

Times Venezuelan reporter Simon Romero is little better than Lowenstein or others sending back agitprop disguised as real journalism in his Venezuelan coverage, including RCTV closure street protests. He made events on Caracas streets sound almost like a one-sided uprising of protesters against Chavez with "images of policemen with guns drawn" intimidating them. He highlighted Chavez's critics claiming "the move to allow RCTV's license to expire amounts to a stifling of dissent in the news media." He quoted Elisa Parejo, one of RCTV's first soap opera stars, saying "What we're living in Venezuela is a monstrosity. It is a dictatorship."

He quoted right wing daily newspaper El Nacional as well portraying the RCTV decision as "the end of pluralism" in the country. Gonzalo Marroquin, president of the corporate media-controlled Inter-American Press Association (IAPA), was also cited saying Chavez wants to "standardize the right to information (indicating) a very bleak outlook for the whole hemisphere." He invented corporate-cooked polling numbers showing "most Venezuelans oppose Mr. Chavez's decision not to renew RCTV's license." In fact, the opposite is true and street demonstrators for and against RCTV's shuttering proved it. Venezuelans supporting Chavez dwarfed the opposition many times over. But you won't find Romero or any other Times correspondent reporting that. If any try doing it, they'll end up doing obits as their future beat.

Back in February, Romero was at it earlier. Then, he hyped Venezuela's arms spending making it sound like Chavez threatened regional stability and was preparing to bomb or invade Miami. Romero's incendiary headline read "Venezuela Spending on Arms Soars to World's Top Ranks." It began saying "Venezuela's arms spending has climbed to more than $4 billion in the past two years, transforming the nation into Latin America's largest weapons buyer" with suggestive comparisons to Iran. The report revealed this information came from the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) making that unreliable source alone reason to question its accuracy and what's behind it.

The figure quoted refers only to what Venezuela spends on arms, not its total military spending. Unmentioned was that the country's total military spending is half of Agentina's, less than one-third of Colombia's, and one-twelfth of Brazil's according to Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation figures ranking Venezuela 63rd in the world in military spending. The Center also reported Venezuela's 2004 military budget at $1.1 billion making Romero's $4 billion DIA figure phony and a spurious attempt to portray Chavez as a regional threat needing to be counteracted. At that level, he's also outspent by the Pentagon 500 to one, or lots more depending on how US military spending and homeland security readiness are calculated, including all their unreported or hidden costs.

~snip~
Back to the Times' Romero and it's clear his reporting smells the same as Iraq's WMDs and Iran's legal commercial nuclear program being threat enough to warrant sanctions and a US military response. Romero is right in step with Bush administration World Bank president neocon nominee Robert Zoellick. He took aim at Hugo Chavez from Mexico City June 16 with warnings Venezuela is "a country where economic problems are mounting, and as we're seeing on the political side it's not moving in a healthy direction."

Romero reports similar agitprop and did it May 17 in his article titled "Clash of Hope and Fear as Venezuela Seizes Land." He began saying "The squatters arrive before dawn with machetes and rifles, surround the well-ordered rows of sugar cane and threaten to kill anyone who interferes. Then they light a match to the crops and declare the land their own." He continued saying "Mr. Chavez is carrying out what may become the largest forced land redistribution in Venezuela's history, building utopian farming villages for squatters, lavishing money on new cooperatives and sending army commando units to supervise seized estates in six states."

Violence has accompanied seizures, says Romero, "with more than 160 peasants killed by hired gunmen in Venezuela (and) Eight landowners have also been killed...." Since Chavez took office, there have been peasant and other violent deaths, but most of them have been at the hands of US-Colombian government financed paramilitary death squads operating in Venezuela.

Romero stays clear of this while making his rhetoric sound like an armed insurrection is underway in Venezuela forcibly and illegally seizing land from its rightful owners. What's going on, in fact, is quite different that can only be touched on briefly to explain. Hugo Chavez first announced his "Return to the Countryside" plan under the Law on Land and Agricultural Development in November, 2001. The law set limits on landholding size; taxed unused property; aimed to redistribute unused, mainly government-owned land to peasant families and cooperatives; and expropriate uncultivated, unused land from large private owners compensating them at fair market value. So, in fact, the government seizes nothing. It buys unused land from large estates and pays for it so landless peasants can have and use it productively for the first time ever benefitting everyone equitably.

Nowhere in his article did Romero explain this although he did acknowledge prior to 2002, "an estimated 5 per cent of the population owned 80 per cent of the country's private land." By omitting what was most important to include, Romero's report distorted the truth enough to assure his readers never get it from him. Nor do they from any other Times correspondent when facts conflict with imperial interests. That's what we've come to expect from the "newspaper of record" never letting truth interfere with serving wealth and power interests that includes lying for them. Shameless reporting on Venezuela under Hugo Chavez is one of many dozens of examples of Times duplicity and disservice to its readers going back decades.

Former Times journalist John Hess denounced it his way: I "never saw a foreign intervention that the Times did not support, never saw a fare....rent....or utility increase that it did not endorse, never saw it take the side of labor in a strike or lockout, or advocate a raise for underpaid workers. And don't get me started on universal health care and Social Security. So why do people think the Times is liberal?" And why should anyone think its so-called news and information is anything more than propaganda for the imperial interests it serves?

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman06202007.html

~~~~~~~~~

Extra! November/December 2005

The Op-Ed Assassination of Hugo Chávez
Commentary on Venezuela parrots U.S. propaganda themes

By Justin Delacour

After televangelist Pat Robertson publicly called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez Frias (700 Club, 8/22/05), the editors of several major newspapers were quick to denounce his outrageous incitement to violence. However, in criticizing the conservative televangelist, the prestige press overlooked its own highly antagonistic treatment of Venezuela’s president, which surely contributed to the heated political climate in which Robertson made his threat.

Even so-called “moderate” columnists have contributed to the deterioration of U.S.-Venezuela relations by distorting the Venezuelan government’s domestic and foreign policy record. Robertson may indeed be “just a garden-variety crackpot with friends in high places,” as the New York Times opined (8/25/05), but the televangelist’s erroneous characterization of Venezuela’s president as a “strong-arm dictator” is hardly distinguishable from, say, Thomas Friedman’s contention that Chávez is an “autocrat” (New York Times, 3/27/05).

In studying the opinion pages of the top 25 circulation newspapers in the United States during the first six months of 2005, Extra! found that 95 percent of the nearly 100 press commentaries that examined Venezuelan politics expressed clear hostility to the country’s democratically elected president.

Consistent with the U.S. media’s habit of personalizing international political disputes, commentaries frequently disparaged Chávez as a political “strongman,” treating him as if he were the country’s sole and all-powerful political actor. U.S. op-ed pages scarcely mentioned the existence of Venezuela’s democratically elected National Assembly, much less its independent legislative role. Commentaries almost invariably omitted the Venezuelan government’s extensive popular support, as evidenced by Chávez’s resounding victory in the August 2004 referendum on his presidency.

Mainstream newspapers rarely publish commentaries by political analysts who sympathize with the Chávez government’s policies of extending education, healthcare, subsidized food and micro-credits to the country’s poor. It’s nearly impossible to find a U.S. op-ed page with commentary like that of Julia Buxton, the British scholar of Venezuelan politics, who argues (Venezuelanalysis.com, 4/23/05) that the Chávez government “has brought marginalized and excluded people into the political process and democratized power.”

U.S. op-ed pages’ collective derision of the Chávez government reveals profound contradictions within the commercial press. While editorial boards parrot official U.S. rhetoric about “democracy promotion” abroad, they have refused to provide space for commentary representing popular opinion in Venezuela. In spite of the fact that recent polls indicate that Chávez’s domestic approval rating has surpassed 70 percent, almost all commentaries about Venezuela represent the views of a small minority of the country, led by a traditional economic elite that has repeatedly attempted to overthrow the government in clearly anti-democratic ways.

In presenting opinions that are almost exclusively hostile to the Chávez government, U.S. commentaries about Venezuela serve as little more than a campaign of indoctrination against a democratic political project that challenges U.S. political and economic domination of South America. The near-absence of alternative perspectives about Venezuela has prevented U.S. readers from weighing opposing arguments so as to form their own opinions about the Chávez government.

More:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2796

~~~~~~~~~
Anyone who's aware of the Miami Herald's history is informed enough by now to sadly recognize they pander exclusively to their right-wing, (sometimes violent) readers. It's a shame if anyone takes their editorials seriously.

People DO still expect more from the New York Times because it's an old, OLD newspaper with a lot of tradition behind it. Only by being well informed on events themselves will they ever realize the paper serves only to advance the interests of the ugliest part of this country now.

Thanks for taking the time to supply the links, and to spend some time looking at Simon Romero's deviant treatment of his subject. What would it take for the N.Y. Times to check this man who's thumbing his nose at journalism?

Looks as if he has been given a blank check, and a venomous parasitic view of how life should proceed, as the wealthiest, most treacherous struggle to take more, give back less, and eventually reduce the powerless to slavery, with whorish politicians creating laws to protect them, using the force of militaries to brutally beat down any resistance.

By the way, it was spectacular reading that Venezuela's cut of oil royalties was 1%, and has been adjusted, for the good of the country, to 30%. Can you IMAGINE how filthy thes previou people in charge had to be to give such sweetheart arrangements to oil companies in the past? 60/40 is overwhelmingly rational, benefits both, and allows Venezuela to resist control from outside.

How anyone can attempt to spin that is a mystery, but they never stop. Daily application of the big lie keeps it fresh in the minds of willingly blind, ignorant, childish people. Thank god their numbers are declining.

[Peace Patriot]

46. "Turn this on its head to know the truth"!!! Lendman eviscerates Roger Lowestein

of the New York Slimes.

"(Lowenstein) claims, with no substantiation, Chavez 'militarized the government, emasculated the country's courts, intimidated the media, eroded confidence in the economy and hollowed out Venezuela's once-democratic institutions.' Turn this on its head to know the truth." --Stephen Lendman

That's it, exactly. You have to reverse whatever the corpo-fascist press asserts--on Chavez and Venezuela, on the Latin America left and of course on many other subjects, but the one at issue here is Chavez and Venezuela. This is my conclusion as well, after reading their lying garbage about Chavez and Venezuela very closely now for more than five years. What they write is the opposite of the truth. Chavez is not a "dictator." Rather the poor majority and other excluded groups have been included, or rather, have created their own leftist democracy revolution, have defended it at great risk to themselves and Chavez is their rightfully, lawfully, transparently elected leader. Apply the same rule to Venezuela's economy and other issues--reverse what the corpo-fascist press asserts--and you will know the truth.

Thank you, Judi Lynn, for this treasure chest of analysis!

[protocol rv]

49. An interesting fact

The adjustment in oil royalties by the Venezuelan oil ministry was in line with increases in the oil prices. The low royalties were designed when oil prices were in the $15 per barrel range. As oil prices climbed above $40 per barrel, it was sensible to increase royalties. Almost all nations with oil production did the same thing. The Venezulan government's actions were not unique, nor special, and they made sense.

What didn't make sense was the way the contractual system was changed. Venezuela's oil ministry always controlled the oil operations. The way the system worked, the oil companies had to ask for their approval for everything, and this included their operating budgets, their operational plans, etc. Therefore the claim that Venezuela regained its sovereignity over the oil is an inflated one. Sovereignity was always exercised, it wasn't surrendered. The change to the JV structure, made at a fast pace and with little preparation, led to significant drops in oil production, and today the operations formerly operated by foreign companies are performing much worse.

[Peace Patriot]

53. The 60/40 share, favoring Venezuela, and Venezuela's control of the projects, were absolutely NOT

the policies of previous governments, and they are WHY Exxon Mobil walked out of the talks, and went into a "first world" court to try to extract $12 billion of Venezuela's assets as punishment!

You are talking through your hat.

[protocol rv]

55. The EM vs PDVSA case

The 60/40 share was the Oil Minister's idea. It's not even supported by Venezuelan law, which states 50%+1 share - since I'm Venezuelan, I happen to know more about the law than you do. Therefore the request to have PDVSA take 60 % was arbitrary. The key element was the government's insistence that new contracts eliminate the right to have international arbitration - and I bet this is what made ExxonMobil walk.

You do not understand the nature of EM's lawsuit. They filed a claim for arbitration under the old contract - which they expect to win. The case you are mentioning was a subsidiary case they filed to freeze PDVSA's accounts, to make sure PDVSA could be made to pay once they lost the primary arbitration case. The judge ruled against them because they could not prove PDVSA would have no assets to take if they lost (PDVSA owns Citgo in the USA, and it's likely when EM wins the case they'll just take Citgo or other PDVSA properties).

Knowing how smart those EM guys are, they're probably watching the debt PDVSA is taking via Citgo right now, and if they see it go above a certain amount, they'll go back to the court, to prove PDVSA is indeed trying to move their cash out of the USA so it can't be taken - CITGO would be left asset-less if it's in debt to its full market value. If PDVSA keeps issuing debt via Citgo, then it's evident their strategy is to vanish out of the USA this way.

Time will tell, but my guess is EM will win the case in arbitration, then will have to follow up with several filings in the UK, Germany, USA, Dominican Republic, etc, to take PDVSA assets. Meanwhile PDVSA will be quietly working to bleed their value down. The problem PDVSA will have is that right behind EM are Conoco and others. You keep mentioning EM because of the $12 billion freeze case, which is largely irrelevant to the big picture. What people who know are watching is the arbitration case. And once EM wins it, the rest of them will fall on PDVSA assets outside Venezuela like carrion eaters. It's going to be very interesting, and lawyers will throw parties thinking about all the money they'll make fighting the cases for all the sides involved.