News and opinions on the situation in Venezuela
Venezuela through the eyes of a Chavez adversary is not an accurate assessment
TOP STORY AT THIS HOUR!
VHeadline.com commentarist Elio Cequea writes: A portrait of Venezuela through the eyes of a Chavez political adversary should not be considered an accurate assessment of what is going on down there. The assessments of a Venezuelan citizen living abroad like me should not be considered accurate either.
Beyond and above our personal opinions are however undeniable facts.
The op-news article “Oil Revenues Hide Chavez’s Economic Ineptitude” written by Vladimir Chelminski and published on The Wall Street Journal on February 25 (but since removed from their website), is another missile of the US media directed to create an inaccurate picture of Venezuela. In the media war, as in any other war, the ones with access to weapons like the WSJ have an advantage. But, as in Iraq, the truth always prevails at the end. It might take some time, but it always prevails.
Chelminski’s portrait of Venezuela makes a conscious effort to look at the negative aspects of absolutely positive things: “A series of feel-good government programs only help ameliorate the negatives that would otherwise accrue to Chavez with his disastrous handling of the economy.” There are independent economic reports indicating the undeniable growth of the Venezuelan economy. Chelminski dismisses these reports because “any serious analysis of our economy shows a dramatic deterioration in Venezuelan well-being.”
The opposition in Venezuela is made out of pessimist people. Vladimir is no different. He sees wrongs even where there is nothing wrong. It is true, he says, that Chavez has expanded pension payments and implemented programs that did not exist before. Chelminski mentions Chavez educational programs Misión Robinson and Misión Ribas designed to teach people to read and, finish elementary and secondary education in one year. Not good, he says, because it can’t be that an adult with no previous schooling can earn in just one year what normally takes 11 years. Yes, “normally” it will take 11 years. “Normally”, if these adults were from an upper middle class background, they would spend the 11 years and then go to college after that. “Normally” they would become doctors and engineers, normally…
These adults learning to read get paid a monthly stipend as encouragement. Not good says Chelminski. This helps boost employment statistics since those studying do not count as unemployed. What a diabolic plan! Give them money to go to school so you can cheat the employment statistics!
It is though to hide the goodness of things, but they try anyway. There is a program that provides Cuban doctors, to live and work full-time inside poor communities, ready to help with minor health problems at any time, free of any cost to patients. But, there is always a “but”; the quality of this care is an unknown. Chelminski does not say the quality is bad. He says is “unknown” and that is bad enough.
Another “mission” sells food staples at significant discounts from regulated prices. Not good either says Chelminski. There are people being destroyed, literarily, by this program. He says that this program is destroying the private sector at the retail, wholesale and industrial level.
Venezuela Central Bank reported that the economy grew 17.3% last year, one of the highest rates in the world. But, this is not good Chelminski says because that was after a 9.2% economic contraction in 2003 and an 8.9% contraction in 2002. Let’s think about it for a second. Would have been better NOT to grow economically at all?
A common trait of opposition commentators and leaders is their contradictions when they write more than one paragraph. Chelminski stated that paying the poor to go to school to get a basic education is not a good thing. According to him, it is not good to give them free health care either. All of the sudden he shows concern for them. He says that the financial transaction tax of .5% is particularly damaging because “business passes its cost onto consumers” and “most of the population is poor and does not use checks”. Sometimes it is easier to smell the BS than to see it.
Another common trait in the opposition is how much they sub-estimate people in the lower economic classes. If they write long enough, their disregard for the poor shows up. Chelminski talks about the confiscation of a ranch that was owned by the British company Vestry Group Ltd. The plan is, he says, is to partition it for “cooperatives.” This is a popular measure with the poor, Chelminski agrees. He also says that, “the newcomers will either starve or go back to where they came from.”
Where did they come from Chelmisnki? Where did they come from? Do you care?
Chavez popularity cannot be denied either. Chelminski recognizes that Chavez has credibility among the people. He actually wrote, among his “disciples” to play it down. He also says that that credibility exists “despite rising crime, filthier cities, declining services, an expanding informal economy and more beggars in the street than ever before.”
Then, where does his credibility come from?
Chelminski has an answer for that question: “His followers are so infatuated that they do not pay attention to the contradictions in his speech or his numerous promises never fulfilled.”
he mean that we are all idiots?
The most destructive characteristic of some people in the opposition is what they hope for. The disappearance of Chavez, politically or physically, is their goal at any price. Chelminski candidly shares with us what is probably his nightly dream: “But when the price of oil comes down, the “missions” will be unsustainable and the bloom is sure to fall off the rose.”
That is how they are, plain and simple.
www.vheadline.com/cequea More VHeadline.com commentaries by Elio Cequea
Since the article has “disappeared” from the WSJ website, we reproduce it here in its entirety for our reader’s evaluation:
25, 2005; Page A19
CARACAS˜After six tumultuous years in power, the claim by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez that he is leading Venezuelans toward greater prosperity cannot be sustained. Any serious analysis of our economy shows a dramatic deterioration in Venezuelan well-being. A series of feel-good government programs only help ameliorate the negatives that would otherwise accrue to Chavez with his disastrous handling of the economy.
In 1998, the vast majority of Venezuelans were very poor and had no good reason to hope for a better future. For decades, the quality of life had been deteriorating. The democratic process seemed to function well only for the benefit of politicians and their friends. The political parties that had alternated in power since 1958, Social Democrats and Social Christians, were very much the same. Both offered socialism with political freedom. Their policies paid lip service to the poor but always proved counterproductive. Private property and contracts meant little in their laws. Two-thirds of willing workers could not find employment in the formal economy and The Heritage/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom classified Venezuela as “mostly repressed.” The country needed dramatic change.
In that same year, presidential candidate Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez swept the country’s imagination with a good assessment of our problems, but wrongly naming economic liberalism as the cause of the misery. He promised a new state with new laws and sold hope to the poor. In December 1998 he won the presidency and for some time after his inauguration, he continued to gain popularity.
It is true that Mr. Chavez has expanded pension payments and implemented programs that did not exist before, like the 11 “missions” programs. Three of these programs are educational. “Misión Robinson” is designed to teach people to read. Participants receive a monthly stipend of 160,000 Bolivars (about $83) and in six months they may receive a sixth-grade diploma and can graduate to “Misión Ribas” where they have the same stipend and in six months may earn a high school diploma. In other words, an adult with no previous schooling can earn in just one year what normally takes 11 years.
There is no question that a monthly stipend is popular among the unemployed or those who earn very little but the quality of these diplomas is suspect. For the government, enrollment helps boost employment statistics since those studying do not count as unemployed.
Another “mission” program provides Cuban doctors, to live and work full-time inside poor communities, ready to help with minor health problems at any time, free of any cost to patients. But as in education, the quality of this care is an unknown. If a medical doctor with a Harvard degree arrives in Venezuela, he cannot work until he revalidates it. But a Cuban doctor’s credentials are taken for granted. Moreover, no one knows the cost of these doctors to the nation since they seem to be provided in exchange for Venezuelan oil to Cuba.
Yet another “mission” sells food staples at significant discounts from regulated prices. This is destroying the private sector at the retail, wholesale and industrial level.
Meanwhile the fundamentals in the economy are troubling. The central bank says the economy grew 17.3% last year, one of the highest rates in the world, but this was after a 9.2% economic contraction in 2003 and an 8.9% contraction in 2002. Despite exchange and price controls imposed to rein in inflation, in the past two years we have had an inflation rate only surpassed by Zimbabwe. In 2004 inflation was 19.2% and in 2003 it was 27.1%. The central government ran a deficit of 3.8% of gross domestic product in 2004, even with unusually high oil prices, fictitious central bank foreign-exchange profits and record tax collections.
The financial transaction tax of 5% is particularly damaging. Because most of the population is poor and does not use checks, the government says the tax won’t affect them. This ignores the fact that business passes its cost onto consumers. In addition, there are consumer taxes which I estimate create a 22% mark-up on staples. Tax rules now stipulate that even the purchase of a cup of coffee requires the consumer to tell the vendor his tax identification number and address.
A main characteristic of our repressed economy is the imposition of exchange and price controls two years ago. We’ve seen this movie before. Venezuela had these controls from 1983 to 1989 and from 1994 to 1996. In both cases, corruption ballooned, and the economy sank. In the end, they had to be discarded amid scarcities and hyperinflation.
Another economically pernicious measure introduced by this government is property confiscation. Earlier this year, the country’s most productive ranch, owned by the British company Vestay Group LTD since 1903, became the target of a potential confiscation with plans to partition it for “cooperatives.” This may be popular with the poor but if the past is any guide, the newcomers will either starve or go back to where they came from. Meantime, the nation will have lost a major productive asset. Next we’ll be wondering why there is not enough investment and job creation.
Mr. Chavez still has credibility among his disciples and his charisma may carry him for some time to come, despite rising crime, filthier cities, declining services, an expanding informal economy and more beggars in the street than ever before. His followers are so infatuated that they do not pay attention to the contradictions in his speech or his numerous promises never fulfilled. But when the price of oil comes down, the “missions” will be unsustainable and the bloom is sure to fall off the rose.
Mr. Chelminski is a private consultant in Caracas.