The US is not only interested in the Venezuelan oil
Well, American companies are already getting enough of it.
Let us talk about poverty first.
Okay, let's do that. This is from another thread:
Originally posted by Devrim+--> (Devrim)Yes, let's see some sources then, and not just assertions. I read on another board quite a reasonable analysis of the economic situation in Venezuela:
Originally posted by JosephK.+--> (JosephK.)
[email protected]
Interestingly (for a retirement website), a very nice income breakdown by class can be found here:
http://www.bulletproofretirement.com/public/274.cfm?sd=2
Their analysis states that:
For Social Class E, they've seen their household income go from 437,613 Bolivares per month in 2004 to 680,419 Bolivares per month in the first quarter of 2006. Likewise, for Social Class D, their household income rose from 768,333 per month to 890,990 per month, and the lower half of Class C saw it's income rise from 1,415,099 in 2004 to 1,765,000.
(see the original text for their lettered class category definitions)
those figures don't look like they're inflation-adjusted (it doesn't say they are which is standard practice when giving 'real terms' figures not actual ones). so a few sums: (edited to fix denominators, results only minorly different, same conclusions)
Inflation was estimated at 16% in 2005<fn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela </fn> and 18.3% in January this year<fn> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6364515.stm </fn>, so i'll take 17% as an average.
Social Class E (58% population; "the extreme poor")
437,613 Bs (2004) x 1.17<sup>2</sup> = 599,048 Bs (2006)
680,419 - 599,048 (i.e. the real terms change)
----------------------- x 100 = +13.6%
599,048 (i.e. the base year figure at present value)
Social Class D (23% population; "the working class or the 'working poor'")
768,333 Bs (2004) x 1.17<sup>2</sup> = 1,051,771 Bs (2006)
890,990 - 1,051,771
------------------------ x 100 = -15.3%
1,051,771
Social Class C (~16% population; "the middle class")
1,415,099 Bs (2004) x 1.17<sup>2</sup> = 1,937,129 Bs (2006)
1,765,000 - 1,937,129
-------------------------- x 100 = -8.9%
1,937,129
There's no stats on the upper classes proper, so assuming the veracity of these statistics the poor majority are clearly better off in real terms, though this may be at the expense of the middle (working poor and lower middle class) or both the middle and top, without class A/B data we can't be sure.
A few more caveats;
(i) inflation is calculated on a 'basket of goods', if it contains imported consumer goods and the like whose prices are relatively stable, this could mask a higher rise in basic provisions (i.e. real terms inflation for the poor could outstrip the headline measure). again, we don't know, but this is a common problem, and Chavez has been talking of nationalising shops who ignore price caps and raise prices on basic foodstuffs<fn> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6364515.stm </fn>, so this is likely a problem, which means the real-terms increase in the poor's income would be somewhere below the +18.5% calculated above.
(ii) GDP growth is running at around 9.3% p/a<fn> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela - this doesn't include the black economy which is significant in venezuela, so all sums with GDP involved are very provisional, but nonetheless indicative because GDP does include oil revenues, the major source of recent 'growth'.</fn>, so it would be a reasonable approximation to take across-the-board income increases of 9.3% per year (19.5% compounded over two years) as a base expectation if everyone is sharing equally in economic growth - which is fuelled mostly by high oil prices (i.e. derived from oil rents) - roughly a third of GDP is petroleum-related and so is half of all state revenue.
Some provisional conclusions:
The income growth of the poorest 58% was outstripped by GDP growth by somewhere more than 5.9% (19.5%- lessthan13.6%), meaning their relative share of national wealth actually fell. however, there was a real-terms absolute increase in income of somewhere lessthan13.6%.
The (negative) income growth of the working poor (23% of population) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 34.8%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell dramatically. They also suffered an absolute real-terms fall in income of around 15.3%.
The (negative) income growth of the lower middle class (16%) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 28.4%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell. Their absolute real-terms incomes also fell by 8.9%.
Therefore, while the absolute incomes of the poor majority have risen by less than 13.6% (whilst falling by greater than 5.9% relative to GDP), the relative share of national wealth of 97% of the population has actually fallen by 16%<fn>Edit: i was half a percent out because of a methodological error (took 97% of the population as 100%). I think it's right now, i'm doing this looking over my shoulder in the office :bb:. the left bits with numbers above and below ----- are divisions. )
0.58
(----- x -5.9) +
0.97
0.23
(----- x -34.8) +
0.97
0.16
(----- x -28.4)
0.97
= -16.5%
</fn>, meaning that the oil-rent bonanza of high oil prices is fuelling a concentration of wealth in the country's richest 3%. Furthermore, the incomes of the 'working poor' have fallen by 15.3% in real terms and 34.8% relative to national wealth, and this in a growing economy where the richest 3% are accruing the lions share of the gains, meaning there is a clear basis for class demands/strike action etc against this attack on venezuelan workers.
note: the less than and greater than symbols fucks up the formatting as it's an open html tag, hence me writing 'less than' and 'greater than'[/b]
Also, in my opinion this is slightly flawed in that it takes inflation as an average of 17% when in fact it should be componded, and taken at 18.6% (this favours the pro-Chavez argument though. On a second point I would actually be very wary about believing the governments staistics on inflation to be anything like the reality experienced by workers. Anyone who lives in a high inflation economy will know immediatly what I mean.
Ok, let's look at what are (for those who couldn't be bothered to read), in my opinion, the most important conclusions here:
JosephK.
The income growth of the poorest 58% was outstripped by GDP growth by somewhere more than 5.9% (19.5%- lessthan13.6%), meaning their relative share of national wealth actually fell. however, there was a real-terms absolute increase in income of somewhere lessthan13.6%.
The (negative) income growth of the working poor (23% of population) was outstripped by GDP growth by around 34.8%, meaning their relative share of national wealth fell dramatically. They also suffered an absolute real-terms fall in income of around 15.3%...
meaning that the oil-rent bonanza of high oil prices is fuelling a concentration of wealth in the country's richest 3%. Furthermore, the incomes of the 'working poor' have fallen by 15.3% in real terms and 34.8% relative to national wealth, and this in a growing economy where the richest 3% are accruing the lions share of the gains,
So the working class is under attack. The urban poor have benefited (but remember what I said about inflation earlier), but it has been paid for by attacking the working class, and lower middle class while the richest sectors of society have increased their share of the national wealth.
If this is your 'socialism', then you are welcome to it.
...
What exists in Venezuela has nothing in common with socialism. It is capitalism pure, and simple, and will be forced to make even deeper attacks on the working class. As it continues to do this, the leftists will continue to support its attacks on workers:
As the crisis deepens people like the above poster will be more, and more supporting a regime attacking the working class. These are the true 'reactionaries'.[/b]
Do you have a clue of what imperialism is?
I don't think you have a clue. Your definition of imperialism equals USA. You don't see for example how Lula and the Brazilian government uses Chavez to regulate it's diplomatic relations with American imperialism. You don't see for example how Chavez loves hugging Ahmedinejad in Iran who is imprisoning and executing workers there and also who is allied to Russia which is obviously still an imperialist country. You don't see that Chavez has very profitable deals with American oil countries and thus has economically very close relations with American capital. You don't see that even Cuba is economically very close to American capital in that they pay millions of dollars to purchase goods. To you, being opposed to America is being opposed to imperialism; to you all the reactionaries, nationalists, fascists, capitalists, Islamists and so forth are anti-imperialism. You simply never try to see how the epoch of world imperialism actually works.