Ya know, I've found a large part of me to be in support of Chavez and his vision for Venezuela. (Admittedly I know very little about the actual state of affairs there.) Every time I have seen him interviewed or read text of his speeches, he has impressed me as an articulate, thoughtful and concerned leader.
I also have a soft spot in my heart for any country/government that finds the fortitude to separate itself from the economic & political dominance of the US in this part of the world. The nationalization of natural resources is an obvious first step in this process. Unfortunately, that's the one move that scares the crap out of any imperialist nation with corporate interests in the region. Iran has certainly seen some of the uglier aspects of that route after their choice to expel BP in the early 50s in an attempt to reclaim their oil resources.
The idea that banking institutions should be required, by law, to reserve a percentage of their resources for those with the least advantages also sounds very reasonable to me. Perhaps the institution of a lower fixed rate of interest for those on a lower fixed rate of income would have prevented some of the disaster we are seeing in our own country over the "sub-prime" fiasco. (I know I'm over simplifying here. This is why I don't run a bank.)
That being said, I share your concern with Chavez's threats to take over these banks. I would think that, if these banks are legally required to offer this type of funding, there must be some less totalitarian recourse to compel them to comply. Perhaps this is just a tactic on his part but that doesn't make it any less unpalatable.

What banks are being threatened right now? Are they multinational/foreign banks or Venezuela based?

I also noticed from the linked article that he is threatening to use the army to close the borders to what he claims are illegal and harmful exports of regulated food staples.

A slippery slope, as they say, into the possibility of a dictatorial pit.

Haha, just about everything Chavez has done has been abuse/abused. My grandparents had to keep bribe money on them at all times until they finally got all their money/assets out of the country. Thugs with guns (government thugs) would just come up and demand money.

The bolivarian revolution is a culture of corruption that lays all the blame for its failures at the boogeymen of America and capitalism. It's only kept afloat by the mass oil reserves that Venezuela has.


Edit:

Chavez has imposed price controls on food in Venezuela (price ceilings in some cases, fixed prices in others). As basic economics teaches us, this means that grocery store shelves are empty (esp milk and meat). All the food goes to the black market where they can get market prices, or in this case, export to neighboring countries.

Basically, if you have a socialist government, you eventually have to significantly restrict freedoms to stop regulated portions of the economy from flowing into unregulated portions of the economy.

Is this why Sweden is in such a sad state of affairs?

The problem with Venezuela isn't the socialist government, it's Hugo Chavez. The man is a dictator whose only interest is in his own power. He does enough to keep the poorer masses angry and the middle class scared, while thieving away as much as he can. He uses his social programs as a way to recruit poor people into a military that's absolutely devoted to him and then uses them to suppress any dissent. He suppresses free speech, rigs elections, and is now trying to completely do away with democratic systems and install himself as king of Venezuela.

There is a difference between having socialist policies and programs and trying to have a completely socialist country. One has only to look to the success of the former Soviet Union.

Sweden doesn't have a lot of price controls that I'm aware of. I don't think Bolivia and Sweden can be sensibly compared.

Having a regulated lower rate of interest for lower income people is a recipe for banks to not lend to such people, just like having artifically low food prices at home is a recipe for the food to be sold elsewhere.

It's well known that Chavez is an asshole for a while, especially when he had the nerve to come to the United Nations and compare George Bush to Satan (I wonder where he got the idea that that would be ok). I'm going to agree with theFuckOffKid, and freshprncebelair. You may THINK you're doing people a favor with stuff like price controls and lowering bank loans, the hard fact is nothing gets done in this world unless someone feels they can benefit from it some how, and people who lend money and grow food are simply going to find some other way of making money in Venezuela if they don't think either of those business is profitable enough for them.

For someone who claims to have grandparents connected to Venezuela, you seem awfully ignorant of recent Venezuelan history. The Caracazo was caused by the horrible conditions brought about by privatization. Bus prices doubled or even tripled in some areas. Food prices went up. For the poorest of the poor in Venezuela, the free market has screwed them pretty consistently.

I've been to Venezuela and I've never seen this happen. I spent almost a month there and went everywhere from the riches fenced in neighborhoods to out in bumfuck and I never saw or heard of shit like this. I'm sure it may happen somewhere, sometimes to some people, but making it seem omni-present is an ignorant and a slanderous claim. I've spoken to Opposition members as well and not one of them ever spoke of shit like this. I won't assume this didn't happen to your grandparents, but a lot of BS rumors do fly around. If this was as prevalent as you make it seem I know I'd have heard of it from one of the many opposition members I talked to.

Funny, I saw full markets only a month ago. In rich neighborhoods in Caracas and in Carpintero, which is bumfuck western Venezuela. The reason for these caps is shit like what happened in Mexico when corn prices doubled. Staples are key for the poor. Plus, there are special discount markets for the poor which have meat, fruit and milk, I didn't see any shortages there or hear any reports of shortages among opposition members.

First, the "poorer masses" aren't 'angry', the poorer classes that I met are passionate at feeling that they have control over their lives and over Venezuela for the first time in their lives. Anger doesn't drive the teachers, doctors or kids involved in the programs that I met. They seem hopeful.

The social programs have not one single poster or anything suggesting going into the military. I mean, here military posters are everywhere. There? Not one. Not one program director, participant or even the opposition suggested this. In Venezuela, historically, the military was the path for those who had no money, no education and wanted to get out of their hometowns. A similar reason some poor towns in America see some of their men and women go military. Military repression though? I seem to recall the coup d'etat in 2002 being the one which repressed people and took down the national television station. If the repression was so bad, why did thousands take to the streets and surround the presidential palace?

Where does he repress freedom of speech? Does he do that any more than it's 'repressed' here?

The Carter center certified the elections.

King denotes kingdom and monarchy. This is 'socialism for the 21st century.' Thus you could erroniously call him a dictator and still argue your case but saying he wants to be king takes you away from serious debate and makes you look like you are slinging titles with negative associations. As to doing away with democracy, the local areas are more active in the democratic process than ever and with the creation of consejos communales, community councils, there is actually more local control than ever.

I'm speaking out of what I myself saw. If you'd all like to cite specific events and cite sources, I'd be happy to reply to that, but these are just rumors without one source cited.

One last note, the poor are people, they are a class, but they are not a 'mass'.

I think is time to speak out on the media about the connection between Hugo Chavez and CIA.
Basically this would be the Fidel Castro 2.0 excuse for US for another war in 2012.

Hugo Chavez has being buying weapons for almost 5 years now and ready for a gorilla war.
Of course the CIA connection is triangulated, so you won't get official documents today, but the truth will speak by itself in the future. This case is similar to Charlie Wilson's War, only on this one who is behind this is the Rockefeller family.

Chavez is just another Bin Laden founded and trained by the CIA.

I'm just saying for the record... this whole bullshit about Chavez is scripted.

Fail.

Chavez has been buying weapons. Know why? If you were a country with oil, socialist policies and the 6th largest reserves of water in the world, wouldn't you want to defend yourself from the US? A couple of countries are using Iraq as an excuse to build nukes when they have less oil and are on the other side of the globe.

Research > conspiracy theories.

I won't expect to agree with me because you don't know from where I'm saying what I say... this is just for the record.

And I really hope that 2012 plans for War on the CIA script is not true... but I doubt it.
I know how the CIA did deals with my country (Argentina) back on the '70s to kill communists, and is and will be always denied. Kissinger was the deal maker by the way. So everytime you hear about people who disappearances in Chile and Argentina on the 70's think again who was behind everything.

Not conspiracy theories... conspiracy facts.

But of course in 2020 everything will be forget it and someone will make a movie and laugh loud about how easy is to make wars on the third world.

This is kind of old news.

The lower classes feel empowered because of the nationalist speeches of President Chavez, and the way the media, which is largely controlled by the government, even more so since that seizure of RCTV which you so cheerfully support even though a large portion of the venezuelan people were blatantly against it, not because they wanted to defend the company but because it meant that whoever opposed the Comandante would have their assets taken from them.

Perhaps my memory fails, but didn't he state that they didn't need Spanish investors right after the clash with King Juan Carlos, and that there were private companies that they ""didn't want to damage, but if they're damaged, they're damaged"? That doesn't sound very respectful of private capital either.

There also happens to be some rag called the OAS Charter, which has a small part called Chapter V in which all parties have agreed to settle their differences in a peaceful manner. Granted, the US Government didn't do much to defend America's interests during the Falklands Conflict, but to think that your officials would actually go ahead and try to take over Venezuela to justify their acquisition of weapons is ludicrous. They have the right to arm themselves and so they're using it, good on them.

2006 saw a great number of declarations on the part of Chávez that "Mr. Danger", as he took a liking to call Dubya was readying an attack, an attempt on his life. He has recently made similar statements that implicate Colombia in this plot. There is but fuck all evidence of that.

Venezuela's economical growth is based on their oil exports not industrial or agricultural resources, or other kind of investments. The government is able to maintain their current policies thanks to that oil-related income. This "revolution" is no better than the one Castro led in Cuba, only the latter never had Venezuela's financial resources, and was better accepted because the world was looking elsewhere and the population of the island lacked the means to access other views and opinions, which the people of Venezuela do have.

And you don't know from where I'm taking either. I have Venezuelan contacts and private conversations with high ranking Venezuelan officials. Plus I just came back from a while in Venezuela. Another neat little tidbit is my arguments make sense in the historical context of Latin America. Yours leave people saying 'WTF is he talking about?'

Wait, does this have something to do with the 2012, 'wesa all gonna die' rumor because the Aztec calendar stops that year?

At any rate, I know the CIA did deals with your country during the 70's and, at the least, had knowledge of disappearances. It was under Operation Condor, roughly 1973-1980, which was an alliance of Latin American dictators and strongmen who were avid anti-communists and hunted leftist leaders down with extreme prejudice. However Chavez isn't an avid anti-Communist, a dictator or a remotely pro-US entity. Therefore suggesting a secret alliance is ludicrous.

Is that a special category below real facts? You've mentioned real historical events, but not one connection between your conspiracy and these events. Fact.

What?

Me?

I don't see anything cheerful about that statement. I have qualms, I felt in the grand scheme of things it was justified, though the license denial was mishandled.

Well, two things. A) the station backed a violent overthrow of a democratically elected government. If CNN did that here, I'd expect they'd get their license removed as well. These guys weren't even jailed. B) these guys hadn't paid their taxes in years, which was the legal, and legally justified, excuse for refusing to allow RCTV to renew, they weren't seized.

To my knowledge, Columbian mercenaries have been massing along the border, but you're right in that there is no concrete evidence to his claims.

I cheerfully withdraw the part about the cheerful support, however...

He took the concession from them when they began criticizing him near election time, it had nothing to do with either taxes or support of a belligerant force, he accused them of being biased and anti-patriotic, as well as a monopoly, and said that he would not renew their concession "on behalf of the people of Venezuela" despite the fact that 70% of the population was against it.

Also, the accusations aren't against mercenaries but the Colombian Government. He made a similar claim last year and said that because of it, he might not attend Alvaro Colom's Inauguration.

I stand corrected. I´m still for what the Bolivarian movement has done overall, but I´m disliking what Chavez is becoming. This is similar to my policy on Cuba. Lot´s of good has been done, but too much power is being focused in one place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that.

Hm. So what´s your analysis of this? Bread and circus? The accusations I've heard have pointed fingers at Plan Colombia. But right now I'm going to recuse myself from the debate for a bit due to chills and a head-ache. I'll talk to some contacts tomorrow and see what their response is.